Hi all,
(Here's my full post, one line disappeared in the previous one)
I'm thinking about building a GPS-disciplined 10 MHz reference
oscillator. Of course, I'd like to add some networking features to it :-)
NTP server is the most obvious, and is well documented.
But I'd like to be able to carry 10 MHz reference signal to various
locations in the shack over network cabling. My first idea is about
using existing converters for TV/SAT :
- RF to Ethernet passive couplers (a F connector tied to pins 1-2 of a
RJ45 connector, $1 on Chinese warehouses).
- RF to fiber adapters (such as those used in FTTH/CATV). But a first
look shows frequency range is 50-1000 MHz.
Anyway, I do not have any idea about whether it will work or not while
maintaining the reference/stability purpose of the 10 MHz signal.
Any suggestions ?
HNY & 73 de TK1BI
Hi all,
I'm thinking about building a GPS-disciplined 10 MHz reference
oscillator. Of course, I'd like to add some networking features to it :-)
NTP server is the most obvious, and is well documented.
But I'd like to be able to carry 10 MHz reference signal to various
locations in the shack over network cabling. My first idea is about
using existing converters for TV/SAT :
- RF to Ethernet passive couplers (a F connector tied to pins 1-2 of a
RJ45 connector, $1 on Chinese warehouses). Will it work at 10 MHz ?
Anyway, I do not have any idea about whether it will work or not while
maintaining the reference/stability purpose of the 10 MHz signal.
Any suggestions ?
HNY & 73 de TK1BI
Good day and I wish you all and Happy New Year 2022.
for the few of you still using encap.txt, I had and IP conflict and had
to change the ip of jnos.ve2pkt.ampr.org from 44.135.49.29 to 44.135.49.9.
--
Best 73's.
....Read you very soon...!!!
Internet E-mail: ve2pkt(a)gmail.com
AMPRNET E-Mail: va2om(a)jnos.ve2pkt.ampr.org
Packet Address: va2om(a)ve2pkt.#trv.qc.can.noam
Trois-Rivieres, Quebec, Canada
147.435 MHZ @1200Bps..........
DE: Jean, VA2OM / VE2PKT
I am attempting to get connected from VyOS, and I seem to have several
pieces in place, but I am not able to ping any hosts across any IPIP
tunnels.
I can ping amprgw.ucsd.edu across the public Internet. I have configured a
`tun44` interface. I have ampr-ripd running, and it receives updates every
five minutes. The resulting routes appear in my routing table, and if I do
`ip route get` on 44-net hosts, it shows them routing through my `tun44`
interface. But if I try to ping 44-net hosts or access them at all, I get
timeouts.
What might I be missing?
My gateway public IP is 155.138.247.113. My allocated subnet is
44.31.64.1/27.
I created a firewall group named ALLOW-ALL with a default rule set to
'accept' just to rule that out for troubleshooting.
Tunnel interface configuration:
tunnel tun44 {
> address 44.31.64.1/32
> description AMPRNET
> disable-link-detect
> encapsulation ipip
> firewall {
> in {
> name ALLOW-ALL
> }
> local {
> name ALLOW-ALL
> }
> out {
> name ALLOW-ALL
> }
> }
> mtu 1450
> multicast enable
> remote 0.0.0.0
> source-address 155.138.247.113
> }
ampr-ripd startup output:
root@vyos:/home/vyos# ampr-ripd -svd -i tun44
> Using metric 0 for routes.
> Using TCP window 840 for routes.
> Using routing table 'main' (254).
> Loaded 738 entries from /var/lib/ampr-ripd/encap.txt
> Max list size: 1000 entries
> Detected tunnel interface address: 44.31.64.1
> Interface detected: lo, IP: 127.0.0.1
> Interface detected: eth0, IP: 155.138.247.113
> Interface detected: tunl0, IP: 0.0.0.0
> Interface detected: tun44, IP: 44.31.64.1
> Assigned tunnel interface index: 5
> Local IPs:
> 127.0.0.1
> 155.138.247.113
> 44.31.64.1
> Using gateway 155.138.246.1 for direct 44net endpoints via interface eth0.
> Setting routes (738).
> Creating multicast RIP UDP listening socket.
> Setting up multicast interface.
> Waiting for RIPv2 broadcasts...
>
Broadcasts eventually start appearing.
Before I run ampr-ripd, here's the route I get for 44.0.0.1 — over the
public Internet:
44.0.0.1 via 155.138.246.1 dev eth0 src 155.138.247.113 uid 0
And I can ping 44.0.0.1 in this state.
After I run ampr-ripd, here's the route to 44.0.0.1 — over the tunnel:
44.0.0.1 via 169.228.34.84 dev tun44 src 44.31.64.1 uid 1003
And I can no longer ping 44.0.0.1 — it just times out:
vyos@vyos:~$ ping 44.0.0.1 interface tun44
> PING 44.0.0.1 (44.0.0.1) from 44.31.64.1 tun44: 56(84) bytes of data.
> ^C
> --- 44.0.0.1 ping statistics ---
> 4 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 88ms
This is all on VyOS 1.3 equuleus (Debian buster), hosted at Vultr.
Any ideas, or other troubleshooting suggestions?
Thanks very much!
It would be most helpful if the amprnet BOD could post in writing an
official statement regarding using common secure communications (https. TLS
etc.) over the 44. IP network.
This email list is used for communications regarding the use of the IP
address space. I'm not asking about the use of encryption over part 97 RF
radio, just the 44 network IP address space. I am not aware of any portion
of the Part 97 rules that apply to the wired internet at large.
Everyone has an opinion, but it's time for the amprnet Board to clarify the
muddy waters around the use of the amprnet IP space and publish those rules.
Please!
73,
Kevin Walsh
W8KHW
>
> Thanks for sharing. I see this has been around a while, but I hadn’t run
into it myself yet.
Apple is currently doing something like this with IPSEC and IPv6 for iCloud
users; pretty much any iCloud user is always on a private VPN with all
their other iCloud devices. And there are commercial enterprise SD-WAN
products and cloud providers that offer a similar approach for SMBs and
branch offices. Azure and AWS offer almost exactly this between virtual
networks, data centers, and regions, down to the private ASNs.
It’s nice to see a project built on open standards for the express purpose
of playing with it and learning about it. Seems very much like something
44net could benefit from studying carefully.
From: KUN LIN <dnwk(a)linkun.info>
> To: "44net(a)mailman.ampr.org" <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org>
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2021 18:48:49 +0000
> Subject: [44net] DN42 for 44net?
>
>
> https://dn42.dev/Home
>
> Just discover this new thing where it will create mesh networks and even
> BGP via VPN tunnels. This maybe an interesting way for 44net to considering
> implement.
>
> dn42 is a big dynamic VPN<
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_private_network>, which employs
> Internet technologies (BGP<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bgp>, whois
> database, DNS<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_System>, etc).
> Participants connect to each other using network tunnels (GRE<
> https://dn42.dev/howto/GRE-on-FreeBSD>, OpenVPN<
> https://dn42.dev/howto/openvpn>, WireGuard<
> https://dn42.dev/howto/wireguard>, Tinc<https://dn42.dev/howto/tinc>,
> IPsec<https://dn42.dev/howto/IPsec-with-PublicKeys>) and exchange routes
> thanks to the Border Gateway Protocol. Network addresses are assigned in
> the 172.20.0.0/14 range and private AS numbers are used (see registry<
> https://dn42.dev/services/Whois>) as well as IPv6 addresses from the
> ULA-Range (fd00::/8) –
>
>
>
Another suggestion I'll make is that beyond support Dynamic DNS for
various use cases, to allow end users to manipulate thier own forward
and reverse DNS records and tie that functionality in with dynamic DNS.
--
Kris Kirby, KE4AHR
Disinformation Architect, Systems Mangler, & Network Mismanager
Hi all, I’d like the ARDC to investigate and possibly revoke the assignment for 44.144.50.0/25 due its use for commercial purposes.
I’m a long time member of the group here but I’m also heavily involved in the Helium radio-based blockchain. I’ve noticed three Helium “hotspots” or “miners” that are using this allocation. While I am personally a fan of Helium, I don’t think its use is permissible on the AMPRNet as Helium hotspots do earn monetary compensation for being connected to the Internet. As a responsible AMPR block recipient myself, I feel it’s important that we continue to honor the ARDC’s rules for the AMPR space, and this is one of them.
The hotspots in question are:
* zany-pecan-kitten at 44.144.50.71 (https://explorer.helium.com/hotspots/112en278X7KpSMfgH9JMnEfkfLSsi2osRjJ1mL…)
* petite-flint-bird at 44.144.50.73 (https://explorer.helium.com/hotspots/11bkMgWVDYSteuq1fLvowC9z4BVReQrXNGCq4F…)
* furry-pine-raccoon at 44.144.50.74 (https://explorer.helium.com/hotspots/112TRAzGUMNvEYEtHawWymZTA4cX9BWu9QFw1v…)
Sincerely,
Jeremy Cooper (KE6JJJ)
> A reply by the ARDC IT director specifically requesting that abuse reports be sent to abuse at ardc.net <https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net> <mailto:abuse at ardc.net <https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net>> and you decide to double down and list more potentially offending addresses publicly?
>
> Interesting approach.
>
> Ian VE7BST
Ian, I thought I was in a private conversation with Chris when I had replied. It wasn’t until I had already sent the message that I saw that the entire list was still CC’d. My apologies, but also a modicum of understanding is also deserved, too.