44net

44net@mailman.ampr.org

4 participants
3196 discussions

Quick Test Request
by John Ronan 10 Jun '12

10 Jun '12

Hi, I've got two machines running here on the, 44.155.6.225 and 44.155.6.226. I'd appreciate if someone on the 44-net could just check they can reach 44.155.2.226 for me please (it could be slow, machine is going an apt-get update at the moment). Also, would anyone be in a position to tell me what the best wireless mesh protocol to use is at the moment. These are two Icom ID-1 D-star radios. I've two more that two local hams are going to put running for me on high points and I'd like to run something 'mesh' on the nodes to allow me to get back to the gateway (225) from anywhere within range of any three? Regards John EI7IG

5 13

Re: [44net] 44Net Digest, Vol 1, Issue 51
by kb9mwr＠gmail.com 10 Jun '12

10 Jun '12

I am also interested in implementing some sort of openVPN tunnel with RIP listener on a OpenWRT platform. It's been ages since we had any wormhole connectivity here in Wisconsin (Wigate/KB9BYQ days). And back then it really wasn't implemented correctly in my opinion. As many know, a few of us here in Green Bay, Wisconsin have been experimenting with non-traditional alternatives to AX.25. More recently the 420 MHz 802.11 options. What I really am waiting for is someone to design some amplifiers for these things. We have been using 900 MHz 802.11 with a 5 MHz channel width for some point to multipoint links. In our mobile tests on 900 MHz, the throughput suffers with the multipath from being in motion, etc. So be aware of that, 56 k will quickly be come 10k or worse. At 5 watts on 900 MHz, we manage to pull off 5 mile non-line of site omni-to-omni links with strong signals. A configuration conducive to a Mesh Network. On 900 MHz noise is a problem though, which also results in reduced throughput. So I'd like to be doing 5 watts on 420 MHz. The RFM12BP looks like a way to pull of 19 to 24 kbps on 70cm cheap. Amplifiers for this should be much easier. Steve, KB9MWR > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 11:00:30 -0800 > From: Eric Fort <eric.fort(a)gmail.com> > To: AMPRNet working group <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu> > Subject: Re: [44net] (no subject) > > Why would I or anyone else for that matter use anything that slow over > wireless when multi megabit radios that will link reasonably long distances > can be had for $50-100ea. These radios connect via ethernet with no > special software. No I don't have any 56k radios on order, I don't see > them as worth the cost to salvage from the trash bin next door. > > Eric > AF6EP > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 12:26:04 -0700 > From: David Josephson WA6NMF <wa6nmf(a)josephson.com> > To: eric.fort(a)gmail.com, AMPRNet working group > <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu> > Subject: Re: [44net] (no subject) > > On 6/8/2012 12:00 PM, Eric Fort wrote: >> Why would I or anyone else for that matter use anything that slow over >> wireless when multi megabit radios that will link reasonably long >> distances can be had for $50-100ea. These radios connect via ethernet >> with no special software. No I don't have any 56k radios on order, I >> don't see them as worth the cost to salvage from the trash bin next door. > > Two reasons: long point-to-point hops and mobile. > > I can see a real utility for a 56k backbone with 100+ mile hops which > can easily be done on 420 with fewer complications (except in PAVE PAWS > areas) than on the higher bands. Likewise, mobile service with omni > antennas is practical over 20+ miles on 420. > > David WA6NMF

3 2

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 07 Jun '12

07 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 07 Jun '12

07 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

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

44net