44net

44net@mailman.ampr.org

2 participants
3201 discussions

Re: [44net] Reverse DNS broken
by Cory (NQ1E) 24 Jul '19

24 Jul '19

Indeed, rdns for HamWAN is still broken (44.25.0.0/16). It appears to be because second level delegations were made on ARIN's DNS servers for every "44.x" label. Since that's at the same level as our delegation, DNS servers see it as an invalid "horizontal" delegation. Can you please see that the "25.44.in-addr.arpa." record is updated in ARIN's DNS servers to point to: a.ns.hamwan.net. b.ns.hamwan.net. Thank you, -Cory, NQ1E HamWAN $ dig +trace 25.44.in-addr.arpa. <snip> 44.in-addr.arpa. 86400 IN NS z.arin.net. 44.in-addr.arpa. 86400 IN NS x.arin.net. 44.in-addr.arpa. 86400 IN NS r.arin.net. ;; Received 92 bytes from 200.10.60.53#53(200.10.60.53) in 232 ms 25.44.in-addr.arpa. 86400 IN NS ns2.threshinc.com. 25.44.in-addr.arpa. 86400 IN NS ampr-dns.in-berlin.de. 25.44.in-addr.arpa. 86400 IN NS a.coreservers.uk. 25.44.in-addr.arpa. 86400 IN NS ampr.org. 25.44.in-addr.arpa. 86400 IN NS munnari.oz.au. ;; Received 181 bytes from 199.180.180.63#53(199.180.180.63) in 498 ms 25.44.in-addr.arpa. 3600 IN NS a.ns.hamwan.net. 25.44.in-addr.arpa. 3600 IN NS c.ns.hamwan.net. 25.44.in-addr.arpa. 3600 IN NS b.ns.hamwan.net. ;; BAD (HORIZONTAL) REFERRAL ;; Received 97 bytes from 192.109.42.4#53(192.109.42.4) in 269 ms 25.44.in-addr.arpa. 3600 IN SOA a.ns.hamwan.net. hostmaster.hamwan.net. 2019071706 900 180 604800 900 ;; Received 98 bytes from 44.24.245.2#53(44.24.245.2) in 11 ms On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 7:40 AM Tom Hayward via 44Net < 44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> wrote: > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Tom Hayward <esarfl(a)gmail.com> > To: AMPRNet working group <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 07:38:57 -0700 > Subject: Re: [44net] Reverse DNS broken > Seems 44.25.0.0/16 is still broken. It was previously delegated to [abc]. > ns.hamwan.net. > > Tom KD7LXL > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019, 05:07 Job Snijders <job(a)ntt.net> wrote: > > > I think this is resolved now. > > > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 02:37 Job Snijders <job(a)ntt.net> wrote: > > > > > Some good debugging information was provided to me offlist , I've now > > > been in touch with ARIN staff and some changes were made. It may take a > > > few hours for the changes to be visible on the Internet, new zone file > > > needs to be generated & pushed out. > > > > > > My initial assessment is that the delegations for the remaining /10 and > > > /9 towards AMPRnet DNS servers didnt exist. I don't know whose > > > responsiblity it would've been to ensure that existed. I can't guess > why > > > they were missing, perhaps a coordination issue in the transfer process > > > from the previous state to the current state. > > > > > > The AMPRnet reverse DNS administators may want to verify that the > > > authoritative dns servers are configured not for for 44.in-addr.arpa, > > > but for the individual /16s within 44/8 that still are AMPRnet. I don't > > > know who manages that so I hope this message finds them. > > > > > > I'm running on fumes and only have 4 hours of sleep opportunity ahead > of > > > me - so signing off, I think things will probably restore in the next > > > few hours. > > > > > > Good luck! > > > > > > Job > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 05:27:27AM +0000, Job Snijders wrote: > > > > To help speed up the resolution process, it would be beneficial if > > > > someone provides me with data what exactly is broken, and what the > > > > values / parameters previously were. > > > > > > > > was 44.in-addr.arpa. previously delegated to z.arin.net, x.arin.net, > > and > > > > r.arin.net? If not, where was it delegated? Where should it be > > > > delegated? > > > > > > > > Any tangible data about what the state currently is, and what it > should > > > > be; will help speed up recovery. > > > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > > > > > Job > > > > > _________________________________________ > > 44Net mailing list > > 44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org > > https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Tom Hayward via 44Net <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> > To: AMPRNet working group <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> > Cc: Tom Hayward <esarfl(a)gmail.com> > Bcc: > Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 07:38:57 -0700 > Subject: Re: [44net] Reverse DNS broken > _________________________________________ > 44Net mailing list > 44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org > https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net >

3 4

Is this a worry ?
by gm4upx＠gb7jd.co.uk 24 Jul '19

24 Jul '19

< IP 0.0.0.0.5678 > 255.255.255.255.5678: UDP, length 106 > Hello, They say a little knowledge is dangerous ! At the moment at my tunl0 ( remote location ) I am getting groups of five of the above line every minute in my recently installed gateway. I have tried without success to stop it appearing using iptables with < -A INPUT -p udp -i tunl0 --sport 5678 -j DROP >. It shows as dropped when I monitor iptables but still appears when using tcpdump at the same time. It can be stopped by removing my ipencap entry but that stops my ampr-ripd reception was well. Is this just something I have to accept or is there a solution ? Regards, Ian..

2 3

New mailing list '44NGN' - was '44 net connectivity'
by Brian Kantor 23 Jul '19

23 Jul '19

As a few people have requested, I've created a new mailing list for discussions of the architecture of the Next Generation Network for AMPRNet, such as have been recently discussed here under the subject line of '44 net connectivity'. Feel free to join, and to invite your colleagues to join at <https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44ngn> Welcome! - Brian

1 0

Re: [44net] 44.192.0.0/10 sale
by Rob Janssen 23 Jul '19

23 Jul '19

> >/And these addresses are normally included with your internet service for free. / > One thing to note however is that in many cases, any ports or protocols > blocked by the ISP on IPv4 are also blocked on IPv6. This is what makes > getting a block from a tunnel broker beneficial. Of course you will not need to have some unusual protocol like IPIP operational over that IPv6 connection, and usually the plain TCP and UDP ports can be opened without problem so it should be possible to run the usual services. A tunnel broker introduces an additional dependency and additional weird routing, so when people complain that using some VPN servers across the world instead of a tunnel mesh is objectionable, they certainly should not use an IPv6 tunnel broker! Rob

4 3

Re: [44net] 44 net connectivity
by Rob Janssen 23 Jul '19

23 Jul '19

> That is true, but only if we are the only ones using private ASNs. > But if happens that some people already uses private ASN for other > purpose, they would be in trouble connecting to 44net... because there > would be collisions. > I see no point of using public IP addresses and route them using private > ASNs. It may be that I do not understand BGP well. It is important to note that the routing in this overlay network, let's call it BGP44 from now, is running as a separate BGP instance that is not combined with BGP announcement to internet or private use of BGP. The BGP44 instance will only distribuite the routing info for AMPRnet subnets, similar to what is now in the IPIP routing table. Also, even though there could theoretically be collisions, in practice there is not much risk because there are 94,967,295 available AS numbers in the space that we use. That is 8 times more than the number of IP addresses we have left. Rob

3 2

Re: [44net] Time to restructure the network?
by Rob Janssen 23 Jul '19

23 Jul '19

> If anyone in Europe fancies announcing their own 44 /24 from a VPS / > ISP and doesn't have their own ASN, I can help out with that element. > Happy to apply for ASNs via my RIPE LIR account for folk from the HAM > community for free. Takes 2 or 3 days for RIPE to approve the > paperwork and issue the ASN, under current RIPE billing policy these > do not cost anything. While this is of course always welcome, please do understand that this is not related to the current discussion! What I am proposing here is to deploy an overlay network (VPN tunnels) to route the AMPRnet around the world and to connect users to it. The autorouting within that overlay network could be done using BGP. It could also be done using OSPF. This use of BGP is NOT related to announcing someone's subnet on internet using BGP! For that, you could require an AS number, amongst other things. (it is also possible that it can be announced using the AS number of your ISP) However, to operate our own overlay network, a group of routers that interconnect using BGP over VPN tunnels, we do not require AS numbers from a LIR! We just use private AS numbers. In the 32-bit AS number space there is a large range of private AS numbers that we can (and already DO) use for that. We already have an allocation scheme to split this range across countries, so we do not need a central registry for them either. Maybe we should refer to this usage of BGP as BGP44, to make clear that it is not related to the use of BGP on internet? Of course, BGP and BGP44 are the same protocol running on standard hardware, but the usage is different. Much like an intranet and the internet use the same protocols, but their usage is different. So while this contribution is of course always welcome, please (those who do not completely understand the discussion) note that it is not related to what we are discussing. That being said, once there is a deployment of VPN routers like I propose, it will be much easier to have parts of AMPRnet announced from the datacenters where these are located. That could be considered part 2 of the project. Rob

2 1

Civility on this mailing list
by Brian Kantor 23 Jul '19

23 Jul '19

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 09:52:29AM +0200, Marc Williams via 44Net wrote: > I suppose recent examples would be personal attacks on named individuals. While those are never welcome, as mailing list manager, I don't like the idea of banning those persons from participating in the list because, however unlikely, they may be able to contribute usefully to discussions here. I feel that correct mailing list etiquette would be, when someone is out of line, or indeed, out of control, for list members to send him a private email reminding him that civility and rational discussion achieve more than frenzied, often hastily composed diatribes do. That said, it is possible for repeat or particularly vile offenders to be subject to moderation or struck off or banned from the list. So please, folks, no matter how angry or upset a posting here gets you, at all times remember to be civil to your fellow list members. Thank you. - Brian PS: to discourage trolls and bots, it's my policy that when a newcomer is first subscribed to the list, his 'mod' flag is turned on, so that his initial posting is reviewed before being forwarded to the list. I recognize that this causes a delay, but I believe its in the best interests of our subscribers. As soon as a valid posting is received, the 'mod' flag will be turned off. Many other mailing lists have this same policy.

1 0

Re: [44net] 44 net connectivity
by Rob Janssen 23 Jul '19

23 Jul '19

> But to be honest I would say a bigger deterrent to using 44 net is the nature of some of the discourse on here. I can't claim to be a Saint myself but honestly some people's dialog is frankly appalling. > Yes there is some improvement to be made around technology but also some rules around acceptable use of the mailing list should go hand in hand with it. It is unclear to me what you are referring to. Maybe you should be reminded that part of the people here do not have English as their first language. Their language vocabulary is limited and it is difficult for us to express the subtleties that you may want to see. Rob

2 1

Adding VPN server at UCSD ?
by R P 23 Jul '19

23 Jul '19

Hi there Now that we have a lot of money in the pocket may we consider installing a VPN server at UCSD to allow user connecting AMPRNET with VPN in addition to the IPIP tunnel ? I myself will be more then happy to move our networks from IPIP connectivity to VPN (or any other more sophisticated technology) . Thanks Forward Ronen - 4Z4ZQ

6 10

Re: [44net] Time to restructure the network?
by Rob Janssen 23 Jul '19

23 Jul '19

> Personally, I love the idea of allowing the network to be more inclusive by allowing connections other than the current IPIP one. Rather than replace IPIP, I would suggest that we keep it and just allow people to act as hubs for those that are behind NAT/Limiting firewalls, etc. This is what we already have working, and others have that too. A local VPN server that is connected to IPIP (and in our case BGP too). However, such a setup is a bit complicated because the IPIP mesh is not well supported on many router types, and having the two different network types integrated in the same router also is kind of tricky. Not everyone gets that right: all routes have to be in the same routing table and evaluated from more-specific to less-specific. But you still need to handle cases where multiple routes to the same subnet (using different protocols) can exist. In some cases, people have resorted to having multiple routing tables and searching them in a specific sequence, but that does not work correctly in some cases. Also there is the issue of determining the correct source address. Sometimes such gateways send traffic with a non-44net source address through an IPIP tunnel, which of course is unwanted. So my proposal is to drop the IPIP mesh to remove this additional complexity, and make the system easier to rollout and maintain. > While I think BGP would be great, it adds questions like: can people announce their own non-44 space, can people use their own ASNs, how will we allocate ASNs, how do we confirm people are announcing space actually allocated to them. One thing we can do, is look at DN42 and how they work. Their network is similar to some of these suggestion with the exception that they use private space. Some of those topics have already been addressed and resolved before. For example w.r.t. the AS numbers, we have agreed to use an allocation scheme for private AS numbers so this can be delegated to individual regions without chance of collisions. The scheme is to use "42"+iso country designator+5 digits, where these 5 digits can be subdivided in a region specific way. Large countries have several iso country designators so there should be ample space using this scheme. Here we use 42204+3digits+2digits where a router in our 44.137.aaa.bbb/16 subnet gets AS 44204aaann where nn=bbb/16. Of course this network is only meant to distribute net44 addresses, our routefilters filter announcements outside that. But you can announce space for your friend inside net44. Actually the same as the current IPIP situation. Indeed very similar to what DN42 does. Rob

6 5

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

44net