44net

44net@mailman.ampr.org

3194 discussions

Re: [44net] RIP problems?
by Rob Janssen 16 Apr '19

16 Apr '19

> If you want to suggest some text I can add it to the template… > Thanks, > Chris I hope a native English speaker can do this... Rob

1 0

Re: [44net] RIP problems?
by Rob Janssen 16 Apr '19

16 Apr '19

> I don't think folks would add a gateway if they haven't been approved for a block. Well, actually they do. The problem is that the visitors of the portal do not know at all what the whole concept of the IPIP tunnel mesh looks like, how it is relevant within AMPRnet, and that it is only one of the options for getting connected. As there is no walk-through explanation of concepts like a registered subnet, a gateway, the resulting IPIP tunnel mesh, etc, people just blindly click on menu items and fill out forms. Then they have a gateway but the still don't understand how that all works. So they close the site and continue to look elsewhere for information, and when they find it they never come back to delete what they created. That is why it is good to remove that crud, but also it would be good to have some more explanatory text and/or pointers to where that can be found. And some warnings that this is not a system to voluntarily register some information about one's station, but that it is actually used for something and that you can actually break things by entering information. (of course we should strive for a situation where one cannot break the network for other users, but still one could break the routing of one's own subnet) Rob

1 0

Re: [44net] amprd setup issues
by Rob Janssen 16 Apr '19

16 Apr '19

> I would replace DROP by REJECT. DROP means the system will wait till the packet times out. > For outgoing connections this may cause issues as the daemon that sends the unreachable will also wait till the packet times out before continuing No, outgoing ICMP "destination unreachable" is not an outgoing connect and it makes no sense to REJECT them... (this kind of packet should not be replied to) Rob

1 0

Re: [44net] RIP problems?
by G1FEF 16 Apr '19

16 Apr '19

> > Given this, perhaps you could add a note suggesting that one or the list > of blocks should be added when they reregister their gateway, that would > eliminate any confusion... just my two cents. This better: —8< SNIP >8--- Hello {givenName}, This is a system generated email from the AMPRNet Portal. This is a courtesy notice to advise you that your gateway entry has been removed. Your gateway was removed by an automated process that looks for gateways that have had no attached subnets for at least one week. Your gateway has met this criteria and has thus been removed. It is important that the Portal data is kept up to date and accurate. If you still want to run a gateway, please feel free to add your gateway back to the Portal. Your gateway's details were: Title: {gwTitle} IP: {gwIP} Host: {gwHost} Notes: {gwNotes} You have the following subnets allocated to you: {listOfSubnets} If you add your gateway back, please ensure that you allocate at least one subnet to it, otherwise this process will remove your gateway again in a week! Kind Regards, The AMPRNet Team —8< SNIP >8—

2 2

Re: [44net] RIP problems?
by Rob Janssen 16 Apr '19

16 Apr '19

What is the final outcome of the discussion? Will any changes be made to the Portal to validate user input for default users? Will there be a change in functionality w.r.t. having gateways with external address within AMPRnet? Will incomplete gateway entries be deleted? I hope we can have some outcome of the bad situation and following discussion, instead of leaving everything as it is. Rob

4 5

Router demo
by Marius Petrescu 16 Apr '19

16 Apr '19

Although I wanted to provide a freely accessible demo for ALL ham operators as an configuration example on an EdgeRouter, I'm starting to have my doubts. Especially to w6ray... What is the use of hanging on a router web interface for 24h now? What new information could it give you by watching its interface? Marius, YO2LOJ

5 9

Re: [44net] RIP problems?
by Rob Janssen 16 Apr '19

16 Apr '19

> I am happy to implement BK’s suggestion to limit the setting up of gateway endpoints that fall within the 44/8 range to co-ordinators. > I am also happy to go through and remove any currently empty/incomplete gateways. Perhaps I could also setup a cronjob that purge such entries on a regular basis, e.g. any that are over a week old with no subnets? > I can implement the above fairly quickly if that is what is wanted? I would certainly appreciate that. Even better would be to implement the addition of a new property 'advanced user' (initially copied from 'co-ordinator' and settable by you and Brian) and also the re-introduction of checking the subnets being routed by the gateway, depending on that property. But even with only the changes mentioned above we should have some improvement in reliability. Brian: I also wonder if the return if ICMP unreachable messages on RIP broadcasts is somehow logged or stored in a form that allows gateways that have done this for extended periods of time to be automatically disabled or deleted. Rob

2 1

EdgeRouter full setup instructions to the Wiki
by Marius Petrescu 14 Apr '19

14 Apr '19

I have added the EdgeRouter full setup instructions to the Wiki. http://wiki.ampr.org/wiki/Setting_up_a_complete_gateway_on_Ubiquiti_EdgeRou… Have fun, Marius, YO2LOJ

1 0

Re: [44net] RIP problems?
by Rob Janssen 11 Apr '19

11 Apr '19

> I would propose an alternate solution. Since the number of such > valid gateways is so very few, perhaps it would work well enough that > someone must *be* a coordinator to set up a gateway whose outside-world > address is in network 44. Note it also involves routing subnets that belong to others... I don't know how difficult it would be to add an extra property to a user record, should be a minute of work in a LAMP environment, I guess. Maybe a shortcut would be to add the "advanced user" property and initially set it equal to the value of the "coordinator" property. Then it can start operation quickly and should it turn out that really users require this without being a coordinator then later some kind of UI can be added to allow setting that. (by the users themselves, by coordinators, or by admins, whatever seems best) Rob

4 3

Re: [44net] RIP problems?
by Rob Janssen 11 Apr '19

11 Apr '19

> I think somewhere less obvious (like under ones user profile) there > should be a place to check a box to enable "advanced user options." > And if that is checked then such abnormal things would be accepted? > Not sure how feasible/easy that sort of thing is for Chris to code though. I think that is actually the best idea. Adding a flag to each user (default false) and using it to enable those things (checks that were present before!) should not be that difficult. At least it should be easier than adding an extra step in the workflow. Rob

5 5

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

44net