44net

44net@mailman.ampr.org

3194 discussions

Re: [44net] New to the Group
by William Lewis 26 Feb '12

26 Feb '12

Chris: Is your station by chance sitting behind a home internet router? At 07:57 AM 02/26/12, you wrote: >I can't connect or ping k6hr.ampr.org, nor can he ping me. > >I can ping and connect to GVCITY.ampr.org, but pinging towards my side >is flakey for him.

1 0

New to the Group
by Chris Maness 26 Feb '12

26 Feb '12

Hello everyone, I am new to the group. I am the sysop of a new BBS kq6up.ampr.org. I just recently got back in to packet radio, and found a lot of renewed interest in packet radio in my local area. I decided to put up another JNOS BBS. It has been about 10 years since I have had a BBS. I have had more users in the past month (from the radio port) than I did over entire lifetime of my last BBS. I can connect to almost everyone that I have tried to in the ampr-net world. I am building my tunnels in Linux. I am having connectivity issues with two host (both have fresh encap.txt files). I can't connect or ping k6hr.ampr.org, nor can he ping me. I can ping and connect to GVCITY.ampr.org, but pinging towards my side is flakey for him. Should I try running RIP and forget about it, or are these problems fairly easy to track down and fix? Thanks, Chris Maness

1 0

On the Issue of Subnets
by Geoff Joy 25 Feb '12

25 Feb '12

I wrote a paper back in the 1995-1999 time frame when packet was fairly active in my area regarding when and why to subnet. I received about an equal number of complaints from the linear-allocation advocates versus the subnetting advocates with good reasons on both sides for doing one or the other. I have searched my old hard drives for my original document but I can't seem to find it so I will outline the basic scheme again. My first plan was to dedicate bits in the address plan for geography/frequency and other factors but Brian talked me out of making any plan more complex than it already was. He also informed me of his reservation of the first 2 bits in the third octet for his use in future, something I was unaware of when I assumed the post. This made the CIDR mask 44.18.0.0/18 instead of the expected /16. This gave me effectively only 6 bits in the third octet to play with. Next came the question of how big to make the subnets. I don't have multiple counties to play with and I don't coordinate a whole state so topologically my region is pretty flat, being two counties, but still geographically very large, San Bernardino being the largest county in the U.S. but sparsely populated. Considering the population of hams in the region and the number of hosts addresses within 44.18/16 I didn't expect to have a problem running out of addresses no matter what scheme we chose. I was pretty much stuck with subnet 0, being the linear assignment scheme I inherited from the previous coordinator and we simply followed the pattern initiated in Los Angeles County where the ham population was more active and dense. My research into the RFCs and the nature of subnets and CIDR masks led me to a proposal to mask the subnet bits downward and the host bits upward, I don't recall the source of the document at this time but it might have been an RFC. Thus, the zeroeth subnet could stay in place as two-meter and mobile nodes and the _first_ subnet would be 32, not 1 as you might expect in a linear scheme. The bits map as follows: 44.18.0.0/18 The S.B. & Riverside Co. Group 6 bits reserved for CIDR subnets within the group. c = CIDR, x = hosts 00101100.00010010.00cccccc.xxxxxxxx The CIDR mask for the subnets becomes 44.18.0.0/24 and the total number of subnets is 64. The CIDR bits are allocated in sequence from MSB to LSB, thus: Subnet Bitmap 0 00101100.00010010.00000000.xxxxxxxx 44.18.0.x/24 1 00101100.00010010.00100000.xxxxxxxx 44.18.32.x/24 2 00101100.00010010.00010000.xxxxxxxx 44.18.16.x/24 3 00101100.00010010.00110000.xxxxxxxx 44.18.48.x/24 4 00101100.00010010.00001000.xxxxxxxx 44.18.8.x/24 5 00101100.00010010.00101000.xxxxxxxx 44.18.40.x/24 ... 63 00101100.00010010.00111111.xxxxxxxx 44.18.63.x/24 By growing the subnets downward and the hosts upward linearly, if a subnet were to become overpopulated with hosts, it can expand upward into another subnet: 2 00101100.00010010.00010000.11111111 44.18.16.0/24 rolls over into x 00101100.00010010.00010001.00000000 44.18.33.0/24 I then becomes possible to allocate entire subnets to a single group, (e.g., ARES, RACES) and a single band (6 meters) without regard to the number of hosts needed in that subnet. Connectivity and routing in Southern California can be sparse and geographically large, for instance, a 2 meter and 6 meter digipeater on Big Bear covering San Bernardino and Ontario California and reaching into Arizona and Nevada but seeing less than two dozen active nodes. The implications for static routing are straight forward. To get to any subnet one merely needs to route to the nearest host in 44.18/18 and the most any host needs is 63 routes. This was my solution, your mileage may vary. I never received any feedback regarding this solution until I googled this: http://www.snarked.org/~scdcc/tcpip-18.html I'll be interested in reading the comments from the list.

6 13

Re: [44net] On the Issue of Subnets (fwd)
by Tim Osburn 25 Feb '12

25 Feb '12

This might be a good time to implement a rwhoisd server for the whole 44/8 network. This way for the people who want to register a block of any size we can have an easily accessible and viewable whois entries. Also anyone, anywhere can find out what is assigned to who regardless of it's block size and regardless if there are DNS entries or not. Then it would fall back to the regional coordinator if no entries were made for the query being checked, and then back to the top parent of Brian for 44/8 of no coordinator assigned. This is a proven method as ARIN has been using this for years on their whois server. Works very well. Assuming that if 44.X.X.0 is assigned something in DNS that it's broken into a /24 I believe is not a good idea as it might actually be a smaller or larger subnetmask. /24 can be very wasteful if you're not using most of it. I would say it would be more common to hand out /27's or /26's. This would also lend it's self nicely into IPv6, since that is supported as well if we get space. Tim Osburn www.osburn.com 206.812.6214 W7RSZ On Sat, 25 Feb 2012, Brian Kantor wrote: > Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 10:13:48 -0800 > From: Brian Kantor <Brian(a)ucsd.edu> > Reply-To: AMPRNet working group <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu> > To: AMPRNet working group <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu> > Subject: Re: [44net] On the Issue of Subnets > > So it seems to me that we have two classes of people requesting address > allocations from their local coordinators: > > 1. those who are planning to operate a regional router (radio- or > tunnel-based gateway) > > 2. those who are planning to use an existing router. > > How should we handle these? > > It's apparent that some scheme like Geoff's for allocating a subnet block to > the first group is wise. It's probably not necessary to actually register > the network (0'th) address nor the broadcast (all-ones) in the DNS but > they're still part of the allocation. Still, the entire block (a /24 in > Geoff's scheme) should be reserved by the coordinator for that router > operator. > > Do we (for a /24) enter 254 addresses into the DNS every time we register a > router block? I don't think that's necessary, although we've done it for a > select few blocks. > > At our current level of usage, perhaps it's enough to register only the first > 4 or 8 or 16 addresses in the block so that experiments can begin, and > register more as activity grows. > > In effect, this makes each router/gateway operator a delegated coordinator > for his subnet block, as all further allocation from his block has to be > coordinated with him. > > Is this getting too complicated? > > Ideas? > - Brian > _________________________________________ > 44Net mailing list > 44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu > http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net >

1 0

mailing list protocol change
by Brian Kantor 24 Feb '12

24 Feb '12

I've set the 'reply to list' option ON for this list, so by default your replies to discussions should from now on be automatically directed to the list rather than to the original poster. You'll probably have to take specific action in your mail client if you want to reply privately only to the person posting the message. I think this is more in keeping with the spirit of the list, and it had been asked for by a few of the subscribers. If this causes difficulties, please let me know and I can turn it back OFF. - Brian

3 2

Re: [44net] Gateway ip/netmask pair
by William Lewis 23 Feb '12

23 Feb '12

Sorry: I crossed my outgoing with Brian and Davids incoming. You're already on it Bill -------------------------- Well, for starters, it looks like the address you posted here is: 44.9.0.1, and you state belongs to WA6NMF. However, I show no such address on the network. I do show an address for WA6NMF, but it is 44.4.9.1 not 44.9.0.1. wa6nmf IN A 44.4.9.1 wa6nmf-1 IN A 44.4.9.2 wa6nmf-2 IN A 44.4.9.3 wa6nmf-3 IN A 44.4.9.4 Now, I also show the 44.9.x.x as a discontinued range. I also DO NOT show any entries at Fullers for either WA6NMF or for any address starting with 44.9.x.x or any with 44.4.9.x So, I'm curious as to where your entry came from ?? At 02:49 PM 02/22/12, you wrote: >No, I never said it belons to me. >I just got an error regarding that address while checking my routing infos. >It belongs to wa6nmf and should be corrected because it is wrong. > Wm Lewis (KG6BAJ) AMPR Net IP Address Coordinator - Northern and Central California Regions (A 100% Volunteer Group) (530) 263-1595 (Home/Office) ______________________________________________ ---------- This message is for the designated recipient only and MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any other use of this E-mail is prohibited.

6 7

Gateway ip/netmask pair
by Marius Petrescu 23 Feb '12

23 Feb '12

Is it just me or we have a error in the gateway routing table? entry: 44.9.0.1/255.255.255.252 via 207.111.203.194 This gives a invalid subnet/netmak pair and gets ignored by rip44d. Should be either 44.9.0.1/255.255.255.255 or 44.9.0.0/255.255.255.252 73 de Marius, YO2LOJ

12 15

Re: [44net] Gateway ip/netmask pair
by William Lewis 22 Feb '12

22 Feb '12

Well, for starters, it looks like the address you posted here is: 44.9.0.1, and you state belongs to WA6NMF. However, I show no such address on the network. I do show an address for WA6NMF, but it is 44.4.9.1 not 44.9.0.1. wa6nmf IN A 44.4.9.1 wa6nmf-1 IN A 44.4.9.2 wa6nmf-2 IN A 44.4.9.3 wa6nmf-3 IN A 44.4.9.4 Now, I also show the 44.9.x.x as a discontinued range. I also DO NOT show any entries at Fullers for either WA6NMF or for any address starting with 44.9.x.x or any with 44.4.9.x So, I'm curious as to where your entry came from ?? At 02:49 PM 02/22/12, you wrote: >No, I never said it belons to me. >I just got an error regarding that address while checking my routing infos. >It belongs to wa6nmf and should be corrected because it is wrong. > Wm Lewis (KG6BAJ) AMPR Net IP Address Coordinator - Northern and Central California Regions (A 100% Volunteer Group) (530) 263-1595 (Home/Office) ______________________________________________ ---------- This message is for the designated recipient only and MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any other use of this E-mail is prohibited.

1 0

Re: [44net] Gateway ip/netmask pair
by Marius Petrescu 22 Feb '12

22 Feb '12

No, I never said it belons to me. I just got an error regarding that address while checking my routing infos. It belongs to wa6nmf and should be corrected because it is wrong. From: Daniel Curry [mailto:daniel@danielcurry.net] Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 00:41 To: Marius Petrescu Subject: Re: [44net] Gateway ip/netmask pair I found that you do not have 44.9.0.1 register to you. ftp://hamradio.ucsd.edu/pub/amprhosts On 02/22/2012 02:33 PM, Marius Petrescu wrote: Is it just me or we have a error in the gateway routing table? entry: 44.9.0.1/255.255.255.252 via 207.111.203.194 This gives a invalid subnet/netmak pair and gets ignored by rip44d. Should be either 44.9.0.1/255.255.255.255 or 44.9.0.0/255.255.255.252 73 de Marius, YO2LOJ _________________________________________ 44Net mailing list 44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net -- Daniel Curry PGP: AD5A 96DC 7556 A020 B8E7 0E4D 5D5E 9BA5 C83E 8C92

1 0

strange traffic
by Rob Janssen 22 Feb '12

22 Feb '12

At the moment, I receive a continuous stream of packets like this: Frame 1: 118 bytes on wire (944 bits), 118 bytes captured (944 bits) Arrival Time: Feb 22, 2012 18:05:47.069526000 CET Epoch Time: 1329930347.069526000 seconds [Time delta from previous captured frame: 0.000000000 seconds] [Time delta from previous displayed frame: 0.000000000 seconds] [Time since reference or first frame: 0.000000000 seconds] Frame Number: 1 Frame Length: 118 bytes (944 bits) Capture Length: 118 bytes (944 bits) [Frame is marked: False] [Frame is ignored: False] [Protocols in frame: eth:ip:ip:data] Ethernet II, Src: ThomsonT_1e:e4:ca (00:14:7f:1e:e4:ca), Dst: AsustekC_b4:b4:6d (00:1d:60:b4:b4:6d) Destination: AsustekC_b4:b4:6d (00:1d:60:b4:b4:6d) Address: AsustekC_b4:b4:6d (00:1d:60:b4:b4:6d) .... ...0 .... .... .... .... = IG bit: Individual address (unicast) .... ..0. .... .... .... .... = LG bit: Globally unique address (factory default) Source: ThomsonT_1e:e4:ca (00:14:7f:1e:e4:ca) Address: ThomsonT_1e:e4:ca (00:14:7f:1e:e4:ca) .... ...0 .... .... .... .... = IG bit: Individual address (unicast) .... ..0. .... .... .... .... = LG bit: Globally unique address (factory default) Type: IP (0x0800) Internet Protocol, Src: 169.228.66.251 (169.228.66.251), Dst: 80.101.113.129 (80.101.113.129) Version: 4 Header length: 20 bytes Differentiated Services Field: 0x00 (DSCP 0x00: Default; ECN: 0x00) 0000 00.. = Differentiated Services Codepoint: Default (0x00) .... ..0. = ECN-Capable Transport (ECT): 0 .... ...0 = ECN-CE: 0 Total Length: 104 Identification: 0x1924 (6436) Flags: 0x00 0... .... = Reserved bit: Not set .0.. .... = Don't fragment: Not set ..0. .... = More fragments: Not set Fragment offset: 0 Time to live: 49 Protocol: IPIP (4) Header checksum: 0xc1a8 [correct] [Good: True] [Bad: False] Source: 169.228.66.251 (169.228.66.251) Destination: 80.101.113.129 (80.101.113.129) Internet Protocol, Src: 76.114.219.34 (76.114.219.34), Dst: 169.228.66.251 (169.228.66.251) Version: 4 Header length: 20 bytes Differentiated Services Field: 0x00 (DSCP 0x00: Default; ECN: 0x00) 0000 00.. = Differentiated Services Codepoint: Default (0x00) .... ..0. = ECN-Capable Transport (ECT): 0 .... ...0 = ECN-CE: 0 Total Length: 21504 Identification: 0x0000 (0) Flags: 0x00 0... .... = Reserved bit: Not set .0.. .... = Don't fragment: Not set ..0. .... = More fragments: Not set Fragment offset: 512 Time to live: 43 Protocol: IPIP (4) Header checksum: 0x3b1e [incorrect, should be 0x2746] [Good: False] [Bad: True] [Expert Info (Error/Checksum): Bad checksum] [Message: Bad checksum] [Severity level: Error] [Group: Checksum] Source: 76.114.219.34 (76.114.219.34) Destination: 169.228.66.251 (169.228.66.251) Data (64 bytes) 0000 45 00 00 54 00 00 40 00 3e 01 8e 79 2c 3c 2c 0a E..T..@.>..y,<,. 0010 2c 89 29 61 08 00 3d 1d 27 45 41 f6 70 20 45 4f ,.)a..=.'EA.p EO 0020 af 34 02 00 08 09 0a 0b 0c 0d 0e 0f 10 11 12 13 .4.............. 0030 14 15 16 17 18 19 1a 1b 1c 1d 1e 1f 20 21 22 23 ............ !"# Data: 45000054000040003e018e792c3c2c0a2c89296108003d1d... [Length: 64] It appears to be an IPIP packet from the gateway, which then contains another IPIP packet sent by 76.114.219.34 to the gateway, which again has another IPIP packet that my trace tool no longer shows. I don't understand why the gateway delivers these packets to me. As it looks like 76.114.219.34 is indeed a valid gateway in the system, I assume a misconfiguration rather than malice for now. But probably it would be better when amprgw just rejected all IPIP traffic that includes another layer of IPIP within it. Rob

2 1

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

44net