44net

44net@mailman.ampr.org

3194 discussions

Re: [44net] OpenVPN or *VPN
by K7VE - John 09 Jun '12

09 Jun '12

First I think the idea here is to get more ways into 44 than mirrorshades. If ISPs are willing to take delegations for CIDRs of 44 then that is one side of the formula. This may be a few or possibly one per /16, I don't think we should be propagating this all the way to /30 subnets. The other side is to bring in pockets of activity (LANs) into these "edge routers", which will often be VPN servers for tunnels from the LANs. The problem we have now is that almost all of the tunnel configuration and methods are tied to non-standard, uncommon, or ancient technology. We don't have to have just one VPN solution, e.g. it doesn't have to always be IPIP using JNOS, or even OpenVPN. It just has to be a VPN/Tunnel protocol that the edge router or routers support for those LANs connecting to them. OpenVPN, L2TP, MPLS, ... the key is that it is a standard, widely deployed, authenticated, and easy to setup. I can take $60 router off the shelf, provide a standard configuration and deploy it very quickly using L2TP. A new LAN would be able to take a script, plug in their credentials (for a primary and fallback edge router) and be up in short order, whether they are on a public / private (natted) address, static or dynamic. Not everyone setting up a LAN will be a network engineer, so we need recipes for some common "off the shelf" routing solutions that are pretty solid for someone following directions. ------------------------------ John D. Hays K7VE PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223 <http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays> <http://www.facebook.com/john.d.hays> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Elias V. Basse III <kd5jfe(a)gmail.com> wrote: > (Please trim inclusions from previous messages) > _______________________________________________ > What about an ipip server that links openvpn to the mirrorshades ipip link? > > This would allow coexistence of both protocols. > > 73 de KD5JFE > Elias > > Sent from my iPhone > _________________________________________ > 44Net mailing list > 44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu > http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net >

4 4

Re: [44net] directly routed subnets
by William P.J. Bressette 08 Jun '12

08 Jun '12

As well all of a advertised block must me advertised only from a single asn. This is where this will start to get tricky. Sent from my Windows Phone ________________________________ From: Michael Fox - N6MEF Sent: 2012-03-16 12:56 To: 'AMPRNet working group' Subject: Re: [44net] directly routed subnets (Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ There are different levels of peering. The policies below describe tier 1/2 peering between the big guys. Most peering relationships are not at that level. Many small businesses have peering with more than one service provider. It's quite common. The current startup I work for has a /24 that they announce to their colo provider in San Francisco, as well as the ISP that serves their HQ location further down the peninsula. (The colo and their HQ are tied together as one ASN). Michael N6MEF -----Original Message----- From: 44net-bounces+n6mef=mefox.org(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu [mailto:44net-bounces+n6mef=mefox.org@hamradio.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Tim Pozar Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 9:43 AM To: AMPRNet working group Subject: Re: [44net] directly routed subnets (Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ On Mar 16, 2012, at 8:20 AM, Brian Kantor wrote: > Perhaps I should start collecting AUPs from various sources rather > than having to create one from scratch. > > URLs to model AUPs would be appreciated. In concern of BGP peering... You can see some of the hoops that ARIN requires for an ASN at: https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html See section 5 <https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#five> for ASN requirements. Certainly there are policies for peering that other ASNs. Some of these policies are good to look at for requirements for announcing address space. Some of the requirements are a bit onerous and don't apply. Comcast has their set of requirements at: http://www.comcast.com/peering/ Certainly things like "Applicant must operate a US-wide IP backbone whose links are primarily 10 Gbps or greater" should not be a requirement. But points like: * Applicant must have a professionally managed 24x7 NOC and agree to repair or otherwise remedy any problems within a reasonable timeframe. Applicant must also agree to actively cooperate to resolve security incidents, denial of service attacks, and other operational problems. or * Applicant must maintain responsive abuse contacts for reporting and dealing with UCE (Unsolicited Commercial Email), technical contact information for capacity planning and provisioning and administrative contacts for all legal notices. may be a good idea. The latter one would be needed to help resolve poisoning of address space and getting listed on various RBLs. Other sites that have peering requirements can be seen at: ATT - http://www.corp.att.com/peering/ Verizon - http://www.verizonbusiness.com/terms/peering/ AOL - http://www.atdn.net/settlement_free_int.shtml MFN/Abovenet - http://www.above.net/peering/ If folks want can make a stab at a draft for requirements for someone announcing 44/8 space. Tim _________________________________________ 44Net mailing list 44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net _________________________________________ 44Net mailing list 44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net

7 23

Trim Inclusions - PLEEEEASE
by Kutche, Jerry (Mitchell) USA 08 Jun '12

08 Jun '12

Planning on switching to digest mode, so I do not continue to get such an uncanny amount of emails per hour.. But even at that we need to remember to be considerate and TRIM inclusions.. Perferrably all the way out.. Or at least severely miniize the amount of carry over. Or else in a 24 hour period we can have a digest too big to want to swim thru.... Or possibly one that exceeds our email inbox size limit.. Thanks Everyone have a good weekend.. Jerry

1 0

Re: [44net] dd-wrt setup for amprnet
by Eric Fort 08 Jun '12

08 Jun '12

Hope this gets through as it bounced after sending to the old address at cows.net. Has anyone used ddwrt, especially the vpn version to setup a tunnel to ucsd > then run rip to get routing announcements? just sounds like a neat low > cost way to get a gateway running. This would be trivial if one could run > openvpn to mirrorshades. > > Eric > AF6EP > > >

4 3

Re: [44net] directly routed subnets
by Tim Osburn 08 Jun '12

08 Jun '12

Brian and All, I always thought it was a waste of a routable /8 to not have it routed on the Internet, otherwise why are people just not using IANA space instead? However, if it is to be routed on the internet I think some ground rules must be established of what is and is not acceptable and penalties for not following the rules and established guidelines. Additionally, and I bring this up again, a RWHOIS server should/must be used (tied in with ARIN on the 44/8 allocation) so that people can query specific address space that will return the contact/owner of whatever space is being advertised for whatever reason. Additionally, IRR entries should also be required for anyone wanting to advertise space via BGP. Those should be some common sence polices that need to be followed at the very minimum. Obviously nothing smaller then a /24 should be advertised on the internet as most Tier 1 carriers will block any address space that is smaller in their BGP configs. I don't know what the whole breakup of space looks like within each coordinator's /16 space (for those that have a /16 of space), but I would think there surely is space in each that could be a usable /24 or larger that could be utilized for that. Alternatively there seems to be a lot of space at the upper end of the 44 block that could be used for internet routed blocks if we wanted to use that first? IP Space justification will be whole issue within it's self as well, because if you only REALLY need /28 or /27 of IP's, one will still need to advertise a /24. Perhaps who ever advertises space via BGP should accept the condition that if only a portion of the advertise space is being used that you will accept and allow another person needing the available space so that it's not wasted. This could be tracked and allocated via the rwhois server in conjunction with entries in IRR. UCSD can still advertise the 44/8, and of course if anyone advertises a more specific route, that will be preferred of the larger aggregate. Be nice if we were all on a IRC chat channel to bounce ideas around? If anyone is interested, how about channel #44net on IRC server network freenode (irc.freenode.net). I'm on there now. Tim Osburn www.osburn.com 206.812.6214 W7RSZ On Tue, 6 Mar 2012, Brian Kantor wrote: > Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 11:14:57 -0800 > From: Brian Kantor <Brian(a)ucsd.edu> > Reply-To: AMPRNet working group <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu> > To: 44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu > Subject: [44net] directly routed subnets > > I've gotten several requests for directly routed subnets (ie, BGP announced > CIDR blocks as subnets of 44/8, not tunneled) for ham radio use. These are > people who want to set up HSMM networks in the ham bands, D-Star > constellations, etc. > > I thought I'd ask folks what they think of the idea of setting aside part of > the address space for that purpose? > > What issues do you see arising from doing so? > - Brian > _________________________________________ > 44Net mailing list > 44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu > http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net >

12 28

Using a cisco to do the tunnelling
by VK4FQ/VK4TTT Sam 07 Jun '12

07 Jun '12

Hey Guys We have a surplus of cisco routers with dsl wics due to an upgrade. We have put DSL into a few of our repeater locations and want to put packet (before the 12/13 storm season) I am looking for a config that will do the ip tunnel encap for 44 net. If you have done it please email me vk4fq(a)smellyblackdog.com.au with destructions please Samantha vk4fq/vk4ttt

2 1

Fwd: [44Net] AMPRnet node/gateway in a box
by C.J. Adams-Collier 07 Jun '12

07 Jun '12

Re-send Sent from my PDP-11 Begin forwarded message: > From: "C.J. Adams-Collier" <cjac(a)colliertech.org> > Date: June 1, 2012 11:57:13 AM PDT > To: 44Net(a)cows.net > Subject: Re: [44Net] AMPRnet node/gateway in a box > > Give me your fedex account number and I'll have them shipped COD. Would you like me to put squeeze on a 512M flash and send along a 150G spinny disk for larger data? It's a 1U chassis: > > http://wp.colliertech.org/cj/?p=1165 > > There are about 20 left. Get them while they're hot. > > There's one serial console (RJ-45) exposed on the front panel. There's a header on the mobo that I could stick a secondary serial jack (DB9) onto and run it to the back panel. > > I'm on freenode as 'cj' and efnet as 'cjac'. I'll be working on getting these deployed to you next week. > > 73, > > KF7BMP > > > On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Eric Fort <eric.fort(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I've been thinking that a single box with: > > 3 (or more) ethernet ports > 1 serial port (emergency console) > a couple USB ports (for USB hub, USB serial ports, USB disk, Etc.) > 1-2 SD Card slot(s) > > that could be easily configured by menu or web interface and acted as a plug and play node/gateway for those wanting to join and contribute to AMPRNET would be a good thing. Hardware wise USB serial adapters could run legacy hardware such as TNC's, modems, and even do such functions as rotor control and radio tuning for sat links, etc. Ethernet would connect the box to the local subnet(s) and the internet. Ideally one could plug a TCP/IP host or network in one port ( the local net... generally a PC or Mac but it really wouldnt matter), The Internet on the second port, and the local AMPRNET RF WiLAN on the 3rd port. AX.25/ROSE/NetRom/etc connectivity could be handled over USB serial to a KISS TNC. > > Now, if such a box appeared for sale at the local amateur radio candy store or elsewhere what does it need on board as far as software and protocol support? What does it need to do and what additional optional tasks would be desirable for it to do? what should it NOT do? > > I can think of the following: > > Routing: > IPv4/IPv6 native > > RIPv2 > OSPF > (IS-IS) > legacy AX.25 support > > Tunneling: > GRE > IPIP > (ssh - the binaries will likely be there anyway for other uses) > (netcat - not the usual choice but handy at times) > > Services: (should these run on this box or a seperate box connected to the LAN) > > HTTPS - needed for config > ssh/scp - needed for config > DHCP/BOOTP - for configuring other clients > > SMTP, FTP, DNS, IRC/converse,BBS, SIP, etc servers - should these run on said box or be on another box on the LAN? What services should run where? > > > Anything else such a box should do to provide easy AMPRNET connectivity and participation? Please contribute your ideas, I'm thinking of doing this as a project. > > Eric > AF6EP > > >

1 0

44net is not just for tunneling
by Lin Holcomb 06 Jun '12

06 Jun '12

> > I am still in the holding pattern while ya'll work out things, but I share > Ralphs frustration. I see tunneling as a project that uses 44net not the > whole 44net project. It seems to me that this has been confused by many > and sent the 44net down one road. We need some highways and not 2 lane > dirt roads, sorry but 1200baud or even 9600 baud is a two land dirt road > compaired to 10-300 meg connections I can offer I spoke to several groups > at Dayton and there are many others who would love to have use of the IP > addresses Dstar, highspeed packet ect. (not tunneling all thru UCSD) > > The inability to have routeabil addresses from the net back to the > 44net( or the lack of desire do to the slow speeds) raises this question > how is it that the current tunneling network would be different if the > 44.x.x.x was replaced with a 10.x.x.x and the route point at UCSD was a > 44.x.x.x ? Really what advantage does a non-routabile 44 have over a 10 > with the way you are currently using the network? > > From perspective I see no difference....If I cant see a difference > why would ICANN? Folks this is 1/255 off all of the ipv4 addresses in the > world we are talking about. This is like 220 in the 80s use it or loose > it. > > Lin

18 51

Re: [44net] 44net is not just for tunneling
by Ronny JJULIAN 06 Jun '12

06 Jun '12

Well Brian. You have fun. Take my name and email off the site and remove me from the list. I don't agee with what you are doing and i really do not care anymore.. Use it or loose it. Keep your Kingdom. K4RJJ Ronny Sent from a cheap lil Android Tablet Brian Kantor <Brian(a)ucsd.edu> wrote: >(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) >_______________________________________________ >On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 11:19:34PM +0200, Bjorn Pehrson wrote: >> Any progress towards an AMPRNet AS, an acceptable use policy that >> not-for-profit research and education networks would accept for >> peering and a fair delegation rulebook with both rights, obligations >> and sanctions that prevents delegated addresses to be not used or >> misused? > >As has been discussed at length on this mailing list, there are >things that have to be done before we can start delegating subnets. > >What is going on is that we (our nonprofit) is attempting to get >organized. That means getting the legal documents handled, setting >up an advisory committee, work out an agreement with ARIN regarding >our delegation policies, writing an acceptable use policy and subnet >delegation contract, establishing procedures to evaluate delegation >requests, and figure out some way to fund all of this. > >To get an ASN we will need to negotiate with ARIN regarding their >standard AS contract; it appears to require those applying for an ASN to >relinquish a significant amount of autonomy, an amount that I believe is >incompatable with the way we wish to continue to operate network 44. > >Note also that an ASN costs $500 plus an annual maintenance fee. >The nonprofit is already about $1k in the hole, financed entirely by me. >We have no source of funds; everything is being done by volunteers >including a significant amount of pro-bono work by a networking-policy-savvy >attorney who has kindly volunteered her time even though she is not >a ham radio licensee (yet). > >I'd really like to continue to do this all for free to hams if we can. > >We're also working on a web-based replacement for the mail robots that handle >DNS and subnet/gateway matters. > >We need to set up an rwhois server to advise of the delegations. This is >an ARIN requirement and good network citizenship. It should be integrated >with the web system. > >So we've not been idle; things are slowly moving forward. > >We *will* be delegating subnets when the necessaries are in place. Sorry it's >taking so long. Anyone want to help? > - Brian > >PS: perhaps I misunderstand Internet peering, but I don't see any >need to get an ASN before delegating subnets. It might be convenient >but I don't think it's a prerequisite. Perhaps someone knowledgeable >could comment on this. >_________________________________________ >44Net mailing list >44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu >http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net

2 1

Re: [44net] 44net is not just for tunneling
by Tim Osburn 05 Jun '12

05 Jun '12

Tim & anyone else I'm also at Nanog and if anyone else is please speak up, lets get together and have a short meeting! Tim Osburn www.osburn.com 206.812.6214 W7RSZ On Tue, 5 Jun 2012, Tim Pozar wrote: > Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 10:20:25 -0700 > From: Tim Pozar <pozar(a)lns.com> > Reply-To: AMPRNet working group <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu> > To: AMPRNet working group <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu> > Subject: Re: [44net] 44net is not just for tunneling > > BTW… I am here at NANOG and representatives are here from ARIN (John Curran, > David Huberman, Mark Kosters, Carrie Marino, Leslie Nobile). I would be > happy to chat with them if needed.

1 0

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

44net