44net

44net@mailman.ampr.org

2 participants
3201 discussions

Hub_NA Changes
by Charles J. Hargrove 08 Mar '20

08 Mar '20

With the shutdown of the WA7V system after a long and dedicated stretch, Hub_NA of the WWconvers needed a new home. With the help of WA7V and testing with KD6OAT, Hub_NA is still functioning but with a new IP address of 44.68.41.2 (gw.n2nov.ampr.org) on port 3600. The software also has the capability to make use of IRC clients that we might get included in a future version of JNOS. All bbs sysops in North America are welcome to connect their chat clients and servers to Hub_NA and join the rest of the WWconvers network. There is plenty of room for specialized convers channels. For the 44Net allocations in NY State (44.68/16) I suggest a common channel of #4468 to chat among ourselves. -- Charles J. Hargrove - N2NOV NYC-ARECS/RACES Citywide Radio Officer/Skywarn Coord. NYC-ARECS/RACES Nets 441.100/136.5 PL ARnewsline Broadcast Mon. @ 8:00PM NYC-ARECS Weekly Net Mon. @ 8:30PM http://www.nyc-arecs.org NY-NBEMS Net Saturdays @ 10AM & USeast-NBEMS Net Wednesdays @ 7PM on 7.036 Mhz USB (alt 3.536)/1500 hz waterfall spot; MFSK-16 or 32 "Information is the oxygen of the modern age. It seeps through the walls topped by barbed wire, it wafts across the electrified borders." - Ronald Reagan "The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates." - Tacitus "Molann an obair an fear" - Irish Saying (The work praises the man.) "No matter how big and powerful government gets, and the many services it provides, it can never take the place of volunteers." - Ronald Reagan

6 10

MTU standardization for tunnels?
by Rob Janssen 04 Mar '20

04 Mar '20

In our local network we have several different kinds of tunnels, with different header overhead. As the usual MTU on an internet connection is 1500 (the ethernet MTU), the typical MTU for an IPIP tunnel is 1480, for GRE it is 1476, for GRE6 it is 1454, etc. However, not everyone has a 1500 byte internet MTU. Some people have PPPoE connections to internet with MTU of typically 1492, sometimes 1480. So the effective MTU of the mentioned (and other) tunnel types becomes 8 or 20 bytes less. Some people get a fixed address subnet from their ISP and it is provided as some tunnel with an MTU of 1456 (quite common here). This results in a wide variety of MTU values in our network. Frequently issues arise for new connections where the chosen MTU for some tunnel turns out to be too large, and full-size packets are dropped. And in an environment where those tunneled packets encounter a point where the outer packet is too large for the interface MTU, the usual mechanism of returning "ICMP destination unreachable, fragmentation required" does not work very well, because the ICMP is returned to the router that encapsulated the packet, not the original source of the traffic. And I have never seen an encapsulating router that translated the ICMP to a new ICMP packet referring to the inner addresses and sent it back to the original source. Also, there are sometimes issues when routes are changed by BGP. Of course many routers have TCP MSS clamping configured where the TCP MSS is reduced whenever the TCP SYN passes through a place with lower MTU, but this happens only on the initial connection setup. When the MTU later reduces due to a route change, this still results in failure of the connection. I wonder if other gateway operators have done something to alleviate this problem. Solutions that can be considered: - ignore DF. much of the current TCP traffic has DF (don't fragment) set, but this often causes communications to unnecessarily break. Without DF, packets would be fragmented as originally designed in the IP protocol. sending everything with DF and interpreting the ICMP responses is the mechanism behind "Path MTU discovery", which was designed to avoid fragmentation and the overhead it causes in routers. however, in the AMPRnet we seldomly encounter so much traffic that CPU loading of the routers is an issue. - standardize on a "default MTU" whenever we cannot offer a 1500 byte MTU. this does not solve all problems, but at least it solves some of them. Note that most routers fragment packets in a particularly inefficient way. When a packet a few bytes too large for the next hop has to be forwarded (and DF is not set), they will not split the packet in two approximately equal halves, but rather they send a first fragment as large as the outgoing MTU can accept, then a small fragment with the remainder of the original packet. This can result in multiple fragmentations along the way: first it has to be fragmented to fit into a 1480 byte MTU of an IPIP tunnel, then further on it has to be fragmented again to fit a GRE or L2TP/IPsec tunnel with smaller MTU. Whereas no further fragmentation would be required when it had been split in equal halves the first time. So, I wonder what others do (if anything) to avoid the problems caused by oversized packets and maybe to avoid fragmentation. For some time, I have experimented with "ignore DF" and of course it keeps traffic flowing, but it is unclear if it causes problems for some users. Next I would consider to use a standard MTU value on all tunnels, so there are mostly two MTU values left in the network: 1500 and that smaller, to be determined, value. Of course the MTU should not be so low that it causes terrible overhead. In the past we had a 256 byte MTU on AX.25 packet radio (or even 216 when it was over NET/ROM), but that causes a 15% header overhead and made us very unpopular amongst plain AX.25 users. Fortunately the WiFi links we use today allow 1500 byte packets :-) The minimal required MTU for IPv6 is 1280. The maximal MTU we can accomodate with the worst case tunnel headers is about 1400. So the preferable default MTU would be somewhere between 1280 and 1400. Are people even using 256-byte MTU links today? Would it be worth it to select an MTU value that can be more efficiently fragmented into 256-byte packets? Or is there another small MTU size that would be a candidate for such considerations? So again, I wonder what others have done w.r.t. this matter. Are admins of gateways that offer many kinds of different tunnels using a standard MTU in their systems, or just the max MTU that each tunnel technology allows? Do you copy DF from the inner to the outer packet in a tunnel? Do you ignore DF? What would be your position on establishing a standard MTU for tunnels, and what size would you propose? Rob PE1CHL

2 1

Auto Reply
by William Bressette 01 Mar '20

01 Mar '20

Auto Reply to Test EMail Titled [44net] Consider some tests

1 0

Consider some tests
by lleachii＠aol.com 01 Mar '20

01 Mar '20

All, I have a question to ponder again. In preparation for emergencies, I wanted to consider some of the following. - Passing traffic thru another GW, we can use the test/example subnet - If AMPRGW at USCD is unreachable, could we have other capable devices that elect between themselves and announce the routes from Chris' server? - Can we test the redundancy of Chris' route server from whom they elect and receive - I'm not sure if anyone is doing AX.25 to IP or vice versa; but I would like to try - I'm curious if anyone has compiled kissattach and all utilities compiled; etc. in OpenWrt to connect a TNC and radio - I want to do an end-to-end test (I recall someone offered me a makefile for some libraries) - I want to migrate my base APRS radio to the router. I recall I have libax25 compiled... 73, - Lynwood KB3VWG

1 0

Re: [44net] Seeking BGP Guru
by lleachii＠aol.com 25 Feb '20

25 Feb '20

All, I think there's big confusion here between what's called in the industry "Settlement Free Peering" and "paid transit services." Comcast offers "Ethernet Dedicated Internet" service in my area (Washington, DC). They offer: Static IPs, DHCP and a BGP session. In this service, Comcast will not allow the user to BGP to a third party with the intention to use Comcast for carrying the 3rd party's traffic. This is simply called "paid transit service". When we refer to getting a BGP session with another AS for AMPRNet, look for "BGP transit service" plans. Peering would be considered traffic between Comcast and another large ISP (i.e. the peering agreement would be relevant if e.g. USCD - AS7377, wanted to peer with Comcast). That's called [settlement free] peering (in a Tier 1 ISP's terminiolgy). About the product: https://business.comcast.com/enterprise/products-services/data-networking/e… For a list of cities with the product: https://business.comcast.com/enterprise/products-services/data-networking/m… 73, - Lynwood KB3VWG

3 2

Re: [44net] Message for Chris, G1FEF about 44.135.92.8/29
by Bob Tenty 24 Feb '20

24 Feb '20

I replied to you from my gmail address Bob On 2020-02-24 17:27, G1FEF via 44Net wrote: Bob, nothing received from you. I have sent you an email, please reply to if or let me know here if you don't receive it. Regards, Chris

1 0

Re: [44net] Message for Chris, G1FEF about 44.135.92.8/29
by Bob Tenty 24 Feb '20

24 Feb '20

Chris, I wrote you an email from my address as listed in the portal. Hopefully you received it this time. Bob On 2020-02-24 07:24, G1FEF via 44Net wrote: Hi Bob, On 24 Feb 2020, at 12:14, Bob Tenty via 44Net <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> wrote: Chris, Sorry to write you in this way but I tried to reach you since the end of October of last year with emails without any reply. Also an email from the portal itself received no reply Please email me here: chris(a)g1fef.co.uk that should reach me. Thanks, Chris

2 1

Message for Chris, G1FEF about 44.135.92.8/29
by Bob Tenty 24 Feb '20

24 Feb '20

Chris, Sorry to write you in this way but I tried to reach you since the end of October of last year with emails without any reply. Also an email from the portal itself received no reply I need the follow change. I route and have an entry for the subnet 44.135.92.0/24 Ron, VE3CGR wants to route the 44.135.92.8/29 part himself. He is registered in the portal. Can you add 44.135.92.8/29 to this entry? Please leave the rest of my 44.135.92.0/24 subnet intact. Many thanks, Bob (Boudewijn) VE3TOK -- There is nothing permanent except change Heraclitus

2 1

Seeking BGP Guru
by William Lewis 24 Feb '20

24 Feb '20

Good evening. I am looking for someone who would be an expert in BGP and using Comcast for the transport. Please contact me off list. I have some questions I'm looking to get answered. Thank you, William Lewis / KG6BAJ wlewis(a)myhostingsource.com * ------------------------------------------------------------------------ * 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. Wm Lewis

7 6

ARDC response re BGP portal management
by John Gilmore 23 Feb '20

23 Feb '20

Quan Zhou via 44Net <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> wrote: > Hi all, > Sorry to bother you with a rant, but I'm feeling an urge to ask that what's happening on the AMPR/ARDC. Thank you for your rant. > ## Background > A few weeks ago I have received a harsh email from Chris G1FEF accusing me for announcing a prefix was assigned to me. In that case, the claimed reason is that the prefix wasn't listed on the AMPR portal. > I tried to clear things up by sending him the LOA from WB6CYT, which he claims that is NOT legitimate, also denied possibility there could a bug in the portal caused this. I have also complied with his demands on even more information including all conversations between me and Brian regarding that the assignment. Eventually he continued to ask for even more personal information without justification, threatening that not complying may cause "close of account". > ## Questions > 1. Has all previous assignment by WB6CYT been overruled? Or am I singled out? Previous assignments by Brian (WB6CYT) have not generally been overruled. Brian took very seriously his duty to both make space available to real amateur radio operations and to deny space to opportunists trying to poach the space for commercial, personal, spam/malware or other purposes. Many people requested assignments, and most of them received assignments. Those assignments are and were recorded in the ARDC portal, which was initially programmed by Chris (G1FEF), and operated and evolved by both Brian and Chris. The data in it was supplied by Brian, by net44 users who register to receive allocations, and by the volunteer regional coordinators who make allocations. Any collection of detailed allocations too complicated to fit in one person's memory or on the back of an envelope needs a definitive register that provides the collective memory of all the past decisions. The portal was and remains that definitive register. If your allocation is not in that register, then we'd need to figure out why it isn't. The ARDC Board has access to some of Brian's stored email, as well as backup dumps of the Portal databases, so we can do some searching among those if needed. So far, your rant did not mention the particular IP address allocations involved, so we have had little information to start from. Most allocations are made via country-based and region-based volunteer coordinators, who all have portal accounts with permission to make sub-allocations in their region; Brian did not have to adjudicate most of these. Apparently your allocation is from the China subnet, and apparently Brian was still handling those allocations. My guess is that he did not have a volunteer coordinator for China who both had sufficient experience and that Brian trusted to do the job well. > 2. What are the current rules on allocation now? A snapshot of the latest version of ToS is at: https://web.archive.org/web/20190731094938/https://www.ampr.org/terms-of-se… -- It does not requires personal information beyond ASN addresses. The current rules on allocation have not changed. However, Brian is no longer with us to make decisions based on years of expertise. So anyone who would take over that job will make a number of mistakes as they gain similar expertise. Some of those mistakes will be in allocating addresses to requesters who don't deserve them. Some of the mistakes will be in denying addresses to requesters who do deserve them, or in demanding more scrutiny than is warranted when requests are made. An allocation of 768 IP addresses, such as yours, which has considerable monetary value if used commercially, will naturally get more scrutiny than a typical request for a /29 that only has 8 addresses and can't be routed via BGP. The Chinese agency that licenses amateur radio operators, the State Radio Regulation of China (http://www.srrc.org.cn) does not appear to provide an English-language portal for looking up amateur radio licenses. This currently makes it a more manual process to verify the license status of Chinese hams. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amateur_radio_licensing_in_China (I hope some 44net users from Asia will improve that Wikipedia page, which is still mostly a stub page.) > 3. What is G1FEF's role in the allocation, which are the rights that ARDC holds has been delegated to this guy along. G1FEF has been informally trying to continue providing service to amateurs while the ARDC board and other volunteers scramble to pick up the work that Brian was doing during his lifetime. ARDC and G1FEF have been negotiating a contract that would specify just what rights and powers ARDC would delegate to G1FEF, and which ARDC would retain for exercise by its board (and eventually by a hired staff, which we have been trying to hire the first person of). The first draft contract was full of legalese that one side or the other didn't like, and it also raised some more complex issues such as international privacy practices, so we are re-drafting, consulting lawyers, and continuing to negotiate. > 4. The holding-the-ID-in-a-photo-of-you practice is pretty common when dealing with financial institutions and websites frequently deals with fraudsters. Since LIR, RIR, and BGP upstream also requires and validates these ID, Why this is necessary to do it again? People who get legacy 44.x.y.z IP addresses from 44net don't have to get addresses from an LIR or RIR, so LIR/RIR practices don't provide any safeguard for 44net addresses. Our previous policy, created and enforced by Brian, was not to demand such identity documents of everyone. But Brian did reserve the right to ask more questions and collect more information when he encountered a situation that he thought was questionable, and to use his own judgment in deciding whether to make an allocation. And he sometimes consulted with the board about how to resolve such situations. > 5. Is Chris Smith, G1FEF capable of handling sensitive personal data? He's handling data as natural person, or an legal entity that ARDC approves? At the moment, as a natural person; he's a volunteer. One of the issues being negotiated in the draft contract, and with lawyers, is to what extent ARDC will collect sensitive personal data, how it would safeguard that data that it does collect, and to what extent ARDC will be subject to privacy controls such as the European GDPR. These issues have been handled informally up to the time that Brian died. The current situation is that when Chris requests identification photos or documents, he examines them and then deletes them after approval. > 6. If there's another change, do anyone with a allocation has to go through the same process again? Since we haven't defined any changes yet, we also haven't decided that issue. > I see that we already have a problem with transparency, now we got bureaucracy? Also it's not my problem that the assignment wasn't added to the portal. It is fortunate that small, informal organizations still have room to operate in today's world, and can provide positive benefits to society. ARDC under Brian's leadership was such an organization; the board helped him around the edges, but he was our leader, and he also did most of the work. Now we have no leader experienced in exactly what Brian did. As organizations grow and become more formal, the world expects a degree of impartiality, predictability, and adherence to rules that reduces the flexibility of the informal processes. Quan, you are simultaneously asking that you be given the benefit of an informal process that provided you with the allocation you claim, and yet also asking that we provide predictable rules and adhere to them, rather than continuing informally. There is clearly a tension between these extremes. The ARDC board (all volunteers) and the technical volunteers such as Chris and the regional coordinators are trying to chart a middle course. Thank you for your help in pointing out some of the implications of the choices we are trying to make. It DOES seem to be your problem that the assignment wasn't added to the portal. If your assignment was in the portal, then your allocation would not be getting the scrutiny it is currently getting. As the wiki says in the "Requesting a block" page: https://wiki.ampr.org/wiki/Requesting_a_block "You must request an amprnet block direct from the Portal. First you must create your account at the Portal. Once you do, you must login..." https://wiki.ampr.org/wiki/Announcing_your_allocation_directly "Apply for your AMPRNet allocation via the Portal. Check the Direct box to indicate that your connection will be using a direct announcement of the subnet (via the BGP protocol). "Upon verification and approval, the AMPRNet administrator will provide authorization to your ISP allowing them to announce your allocation." If only one of your three /24 allocations is in the portal, then how did Brian, the very meticulous AMPRNet administrator end up providing you with a Letter of Authorization for the others? > Best Regards, > Quan Best regards back to you, John Gilmore, W0GNU ARDC board member

5 6

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

44net