44net

44net@mailman.ampr.org

3194 discussions

Ping: Is the list down?
by Roland Schwarz 09 Jan '21

09 Jan '21

-- __________________________________________ _ _ | Roland Schwarz |_)(_ | | \__) | mailto:roland.schwarz@blackspace.at ________| http://www.blackspace.at

1 1

Re: [44net] Test Script for ipip Gateway
by Mark Herson, N2MH 04 Jan '21

04 Jan '21

> If anyone wants to test my incoming access, you can try n2mh.ampr.org > or http://n2mh-web.ampr.org. Please let me know the results. Sorry, that web url is a typo. It should be http://n2mh-web.n2mh.ampr.org I have received several emails to n2mh(a)n2mh.ampr.org. 73, Mark, N2MH

8 12

Scope, limited scope, and policies
by Jeff Goeke-Smith 03 Jan '21

03 Jan '21

So, I'm going to continue to harp on the question of what capabilities/services are we attempting to enable? On that note, I'm going to point out the ARDC ToS which expressly indicates that the entirety of connectivity is outside the scope of what ARDC does. Specifically, section 3, "ARDC DOES NOT provide network services. Specifically, we do NOT provide network connectivity,"... [1]. While that document does cover address assignment agreements, it doesn't talk about the IPIP mesh at all. Is it out of scope? Is the IPIP tunnel service in scope and a thing that should be covered by the ToS? Secondly, and less critically, that document has an inaccurate assessment of AMPRNet as far as I understand: > “AMPRNet” means the network 44/8; that is, all Internet IP addresses from 44.0.0.0 through 44.255.255.255. So, is the IPIP mesh network gateway an actual service from ARDC? Should it be? How is it related to address assignment service? I'm putting forward this question because of the following reasoning: The primary resource of interest is the IPv4 address space. Those that already know how to work with allocations of address on the internet, either personally or by proxy, can and do get allocations of /24 and greater regularly and utilize them. Anybody who can do this prefers to do this. (I'm willing to be told that I'm wrong here, but I haven't seen that case.). The substantial problems show up in the form of addresses being used over IPIP or VPN connections, due to bandwidth, latency (to California and back!), and configuration complexity (610 IPIP tunnels last I counted). What if we give up on that, and just start pushing users to regional operators with local connectivity solutions? What if we spent the time here building the parts for those local connectivity solutions? To some extent, that's already the discussions underway. Because I think regional operators will be completely happy to just announce address space out of their existing infrastructure. Seeing the variety of framings regarding protocol and hardware choices leads me to think that there's not much agreement at all about the scale (Hardware vs Software, ISP / Enterprise / SMB / roll-your-own devices) of the solution that's needed. How those regional operations interconnect, also a regional to regional question. Is this whole question out of scope for ARDC/AMPRnet? [1] https://www.ampr.org/terms-of-service/

1 1

Contact request
by G1FEF 03 Jan '21

03 Jan '21

I need to contact Ian - VE7BST urgently. Ian, if you are reading this please can you contact me off list asap. If anyone knows how to contact Ian, please could they pass this on. Thank you, Chris - G1FEF

1 0

IPEncap (proto 4) - how to add to UFW?
by nasluch＠jestok.com 02 Jan '21

02 Jan '21

Hello I am using the UFW firewall on Debian Buster. What rule do I have to use to enable protocol 4 (ipencap) for the ampr-ripd script to work? Tom SQ4BJA

3 3

Re: [44net] ipencap routing question
by Rob Janssen 02 Jan '21

02 Jan '21

> If we replaced the IPIP mesh with a collection of geographically > distributed VPN servers (OpenVPN?) which advertised routes for /24 (or > larger) subnets, and dual homed each subnet to two or more VPN servers we > would have pretty good redundancy and could end the distribution of IPIP > endpoints and just let the Internet route between subnets. That, or alternatively we could setup a number of routers across the globe with a tunnel mesh between them (similar to what is now done on IPIP, but probably better to use something like GRE/IPsec tunnels), with BGP talking between all those routers, and let users connect their router to one or more of them as they desire. When one, they could use a VPN with static routing of their subnet, when they use 2 or 3 connections they could use BGP as well to advertise their own subnet plus maybe local people's subnets they have routed over radio. (in the above, with BGP I mean BGP on private AS with only AMPRNet routes, not full internet BGP) In such a setup, a single router failing would have little or no impact on the network as a whole. And everyone can participate with simpler or more complex setups without having to forcibly deal with a 600-tunnel mesh (that still does not allow redundancy of the internet connection, i.e. the current IPIP tunnel mesh cannot handle redundant internet connections that present a different internet IP to the tunnel system). Routers in this system could also announce, directly or via their ISP, subnets from AMPRnet directly to internet. That would just mean there is a more direct path between AMPRNet users and internet users in that region. But it is not a firm requirement to do so. But well, it has all been discussed several times already. In the beginning, the counter-argument was "it would cost money and who is going to pay that??". I think that is resolved now. The next one was "but we won't have a full mesh, traffic to my buddy is going to take 2 or 3 tunnel hops instead of one". Well, not really true, one can always setup a direct tunnel to someone else, and a BGP session over that, and direct traffic will take that path because it has less visible hops. So then we usually end up in the "it has always been done this way (IPIP mesh) and I am not going to change". Where the discussion usually stops until the next new user turns up that has difficulty getting connected to the mesh, e.g. because they are behind a NAT router they cannot change, their address is very dynamic, they want to use an off-the-shelf router, etc etc. By now it appears to be the classical "it was difficult for me should it should be difficult for everyone else trying to join" that has also been abused for so long in the battle to get rid of CW exams when obtaining a ham radio license... Rob

16 38

hsmm-gw.kb9mwr.ampr.org
by Mark Herson, N2MH 02 Jan '21

02 Jan '21

Hi Steve, First of all, thanks for checking out my connectivity as requested in my post to Net44 Second, I notice that your hostname begins with hsmm. Have you done anything with that or advanced to AREDN? Third, I'm interested in your report of gateways with errors. Is that a custom script that you wrote that inspects incoming frames from the tunnel? Lastly, I tried calling your sip phone on 44.92.21.20 but there was no response. Is that an active device? 73, Mark, N2MH

2 1

Test Script for ipip Gateway
by Mark Herson, N2MH 02 Jan '21

02 Jan '21

To the List, I have my ipip gateway set up and working. I can get to a lot of hosts/networks. However, I am not sure I have it set up completely right. Is there a test script that I can run to test out its functionality? Or, even a list of hosts/networks known to be reachable via a properly operating ipip gateway? There's a lot of destinations that I can not reach. Unfortunately, I can't tell if an individual destination is unreachable or simple off the air. A known-hosts list will tell me a lot. If anyone wants to test my incoming access, you can try n2mh.ampr.org or http://n2mh-web.ampr.org. Please let me know the results. Thanks and 73, Mark, N2MH

3 2

Re: [44net] ipencap routing question -> What about the future ?
by Rob Janssen 31 Dec '20

31 Dec '20

> I don't really agree. IMHO, the key for mass adoption is the > availability of ready-to-use images for tiny computers such as Raspberry > Pi. Such images can be made as a by-product of a new network design, but please understand that the main objective of the network changes should be that such special images should become unnecessary to get a working network connection. It should work with a normal router. "normal" in the sense that it requires a little more than basic home NAT router functionality, but any commercial router that is able to setup a VPN like L2TP/IPsec, SSTP, PPTP etc should be able to join the network just using its standard configuration interface. And when it supports BGP, it should be able to participate in routing towards others. So, no special tricks required like we now have multipoint tunnels, ampr-ripd, etc and which would require preparation of an image for a newbie to be able to join. Sure it can be done as one of the options, as a project for someone who likes to make such images (with an initial configuration dialog etc) and loves to keep such things uptodate. A simple router like the MikroTik RB750Gr3 is in the same price class as a Raspberry Pi (when SD card, housing and power supply are included) and it conveniently provides 5 ethernet ports and a USB connector. For such a router, just an example configuration is required and the software is kept uptodate by someone else. Rob

10 22

Re: [44net] ipencap routing question -> What about the future ?
by Rob Janssen 31 Dec '20

31 Dec '20

> Yes, a 44 BGP network would do the trick, but I am certainly not willing > to pay hundreds of USD per month for such an endeavor. BGP peering is > not cheap and not readily available in the whole wide world unless it is > not piggy backed on another preexisting AS for a select few working in > the network business. Aside from the discussion "what it really costs", this is one reason why I think the deployment of access routers around the world should be coordinated by ARDC instead of being an individual effort by hams around the world each serving only their local region. Certainly there should be room for that, but it should not be the only option. ARDC can investigate and find one or more VPS providers where they can order a number of VPS including BGP announcement of a subnet at several datacenters, for some fixed price which should be within the ARDC budget. In the network structure as I see it, there would be routers connected by tunnels and serving a VPN service for the users, but they would not all need to have BGP announced subnets. When it is too expensive to have that in some country, that can be done in a nearby country instead. The private-AS internal BGP routing of all AMPRnet addresses will handle that. Of course one usually would want a country subnet to be announced somewhere nearby, to reduce latency for the users not connected to AMPRnet. With a well-connected router mesh in good datacenters, the latency will be in the millisecond region, and not like the values we now see for traffic going via amprgw. Rob

6 9

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

44net