44net

44net@mailman.ampr.org

3179 discussions

by KJ7DMC

Hello, I'm setting up a gateway on a linux server, I have added NAT and firewall rules to send protocol 4 over to my server at 10.0.2.1. Here's some output from tcpdump. Does this look right to you? Under it I have the output from ampr-ripd, showing nothing coming in. 0.0.0.0.5678 > 255.255.255.255.5678: UDP, length 102 15:41:24.153222 IP (tos 0x50, ttl 242, id 15047, offset 0, flags [none], proto IPIP (4), length 174) ip72-192-148-49.sd.sd.cox.net > 10.0.2.1: IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 0, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 154) 0.0.0.0.5678 > 255.255.255.255.5678: UDP, length 126 15:41:35.790028 IP (tos 0x50, ttl 232, id 5104, offset 0, flags [none], proto IPIP (4), length 166) dhcp-91-241-24-251.zc.net.pl > 10.0.2.1: IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 0, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 146) 0.0.0.0.5678 > 255.255.255.255.5678: UDP, length 118 15:41:40.735505 IP (tos 0x50, ttl 233, id 5482, offset 0, flags [none], proto IPIP (4), length 150) 89-67-160-225.dynamic.chello.pl > 10.0.2.1: IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 0, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 130) 0.0.0.0.5678 > 255.255.255.255.5678: UDP, length 102 15:42:24.169078 IP (tos 0x50, ttl 242, id 15303, offset 0, flags [none], proto IPIP (4), length 174) ip72-192-148-49.sd.sd.cox.net > 10.0.2.1: IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 0, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 154) 0.0.0.0.5678 > 255.255.255.255.5678: UDP, length 126 15:42:35.827618 IP (tos 0x50, ttl 232, id 5105, offset 0, flags [none], proto IPIP (4), length 166) dhcp-91-241-24-251.zc.net.pl > 10.0.2.1: IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 0, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 146) 0.0.0.0.5678 > 255.255.255.255.5678: UDP, length 118 root@rigel:~/ampr-ripd-2.4# ./ampr-ripd -d -i tunl0 Using gateway 10.0.0.1 for direct 44net endpoints via interface enp2s0. Waiting for RIPv2 broadcasts... Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks and 73, -Nate, KJ7DMC

6 years, 1 month

Brian Kantor could you contact me off-list please

by Ruben ON3RVH

Hi Brian, I am trying to reach you off-list but the message keeps bouncing at your bkantor.net o365 mailbox due to security settings. I have a question about re-routing my BGP subnet. Would it be possible to contact me off-list please? Thanks! 73, Ruben - ON3RVH

6 years, 1 month

Vultr & vyos bgp setup

by brian＠binded.net

Hello All! I just got my /24 setup over at vultr. Im trying to follow a generic VYOS guide to setup bgp. Im getting some errors when trying to setup the bgp network command. Im used to working with cisco stuff, never really configured anything else. Has anyone used VYOS for bgp? Or is there another router OS thats better to use. 73, Brian

6 years, 1 month

EdgeRouter Gateway question.

by KJ7DMC

Hello, I have set up my ubiquiti edgerouter according to this guide http://wiki.ampr.org/wiki/Setting_up_a_gateway_on_Ubiquiti_EdgeRouter. I have plugged a pc into the new port, and I have internet connectivity, but via my ISP ip address. Here is a traceroute to google, showing that it is hitting the gateway. My PC has a static ip of 44.26.0.170, a mask of 225.255.255.248 and a default gateway of 44.26.0.169. What am I doing wrong? Thanks, -Nate 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms kj7dmc.ampr.org [44.26.0.169] 2 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.2.1 3 10 ms 9 ms 10 ms 96.120.60.77 4 10 ms 9 ms 8 ms ae-118-rur01.beaverton.or.bverton.comcast.net [162.151.125.65] 5 9 ms 10 ms 10 ms ae-51-ar01.beaverton.or.bverton.comcast.net [68.85.146.197] 6 29 ms 24 ms 26 ms be-33490-cr02.sunnyvale.ca.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.92.205] 7 25 ms 25 ms 26 ms be-11025-cr01.9greatoaks.ca.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.87.158] 8 24 ms 24 ms 25 ms be-12544-pe01.9greatoaks.ca.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.87.150] 9 25 ms 24 ms 24 ms fonality-cr01.losangeles.ca.ibone.comcast.net [75.149.228.74] 10 * * * Request timed out. 11 27 ms 26 ms 27 ms 108.170.237.22 12 25 ms 24 ms 24 ms 108.170.242.253 13 28 ms 25 ms 25 ms 216.239.62.41 14 32 ms 33 ms 32 ms 74.125.253.92 15 34 ms 32 ms 42 ms 72.14.239.31 16 33 ms 34 ms 33 ms 108.170.235.3 17 32 ms 32 ms 32 ms 108.170.245.97 18 32 ms 31 ms 31 ms 209.85.242.37 19 32 ms 31 ms 31 ms sea15s07-in-f14.1e100.net [216.58.193.78]

6 years, 1 month

AX25 support on Linux based (Raspberry PI) node

by Lorenzo Simoncello

Hi hoping won't be OT for "44 Net" mailing list, I would like to ask for yours experience with current AX25 support on Debian and specifically on Linux (Raspbian) based (Raspberry PI) node. At the moment my node should have 1 radio port (1 6pack interface to TNC) and one AXIP link via 44 net. In a previuos post I can see some warnings about "... many kernel issues with the AX25 stack and newer kernels that cause the kernel to simply lock, panic, and other nasties ..." and so the downgrade advice. On the other hand I can see AX25 kernel patch mailing list with some recent kernel little patches about AX25 ... someone know the real recent kernels conditions? It is absolutely necessary to downgrade from current stable 4.14.98 to previous 4.1.21 (for example ...)? In this case, is there a more recent "good" downgrade kernel? It is better to use "Jessie" instead of "Stretch" distro? Again about AX25 packages AX.25 Apps, AX.25 Tools, AX.25 Library: It is always the best choise to recompile and use VE7FET packages (thanks to Lee VE7FET for bugs fixed and reorganizing) instead of official repository (APT) ? It's a pity that there is no way to have a single good source ... Thanks for sharing your experience... may help to shorten the time to right configure a new node for more than someone ;) '73 de Lorenzo iw3her

6 years, 1 month

Re: [44net] BGP routes in RIP transmissions - Using ampr-ripd in parallel with BGP ?

by Rob Janssen

> This is another drawback : all outgoing traffic (to Internet) has to go > through one of our gateways, and can not be forwareded to Internet > directly by an endpoint via its local (NATted) ISP. Yes of course. In our case that is not very important because our gateway is in a datacenter in Amsterdam, where most of the internet traffic passes anyway, and the ping time to typical internet hosts nearby is like 2ms. I have a 5.5ms ping time to our gateway via my VDSL connection, and ~9ms via the radio links. That isn't an issue. In Germany it should not really be a problem to do it like this, they could have several datacenters across the country too. The trick is of course to find something that is inexpensive enough to pay it out of someone's pocket, as setting up a donation or contribution system is quite difficult, especially in the amateur radio community. (in Dutch a Ham is called "zendamateur" which is often written as "centamateur" in situations concerning financing community projects. it is funny that many amateurs have no problem paying like 2000-4000 euro for a transceiver, but won't consider paying 20 euro/year to sponsor a community project) Rob

6 years, 1 month

Re: [44net] AX25 support on Linux based (Raspberry PI) node

by Rob Janssen

> Since many on this group have the peculiar knowledge on AX.25, > on amateur packet radio and related stuff, it could be effective > and proficient to re-compact the efforts to support, repair, > improve and revamp the linux kernel, the NET/NOS and so on. The problem with code in the kernel is that it is very difficult to get any improvements available to the user. Assuming that not everyone wants to compile their own custom kernel from source, you need to get the improvements implemented in the standard kernel and then you have to wait until the distribution(s) of choice add this new fixed kernel into their distribution. Then you have to wait until this distribution is widely used by the users. This can easily take a year, maybe more! And when you discover problems or want to make additions the cycle starts again. Worse: when others make changes and break things, it takes a long time before this impacts users and then again a long time to fix it. So the approach really should be to take the stuff out of the kernel. Or maybe move it into an indepently developed loadable kernel module, maybe via dkms or so. Rob

6 years, 1 month

Re: [44net] BGP routes in RIP transmissions - Using ampr-ripd in parallel with BGP ?

by Rob Janssen

> - We are an island, so our network will be managed as a "closed" network, with only two gateways to "the rest of the world", in two data centers located in the two the main cities. It should be possible to get it working correct in that setup. The main problems of the German network are: - the use of many exitpoints towards internet that use consumer lines and NAT - the reliance on consumer routers that offer no flexibility in routing and connection marking (AVM Fritzbox etc) - the separation of different connection technologies in different routing tables evaluated sequentially instead of from smallest subnetsize up - (motivated by some of the above points) the naive routing that does not take connections into account, so it cannot differentiate between outgoing and incoming connections When you (and it looks like you do) abolish those internet connection points with NAT, most of the problems are already solved even in cases where the routing is asymmetrical and not optimal. At least it works. Rob

6 years, 1 month

Re: [44net] BGP routes in RIP transmissions - Using ampr-ripd in parallel with BGP ?

by Rob Janssen

> And then you'll have issues in at least parts of the German networks. You will have issues with them no matter what. Their network design just isn't suitable for connection to internet. No matter if you do or don't use tunnels, you will always have issues in some way. Rob

6 years, 1 month

Re: [44net] AX25 support on Linux based (Raspberry PI) node

by Rob Janssen

> The challenge is that by loosing the protocol stack in the kernel, all the existing Linux packet applications break. Maybe if a new libax25 library was created that could redirect all those calls to something in userland, that would work but that doesn't exist today. By also moving out of the kernel, we loose most of the advanced routing abilities in playing around with AX25/Netrom/Rose, etc. It should be possible to make a usermode program that handles socket calls made by other programs. I.e. you continue to use a socket interface but the protocols are not in the kernel but in that user program. Solutions like this are used for many exotic services that cannot live in the kernel for maintenance reasons. (although for technological reasons they should be in the kernel) > Btw.. I don't understand your "put only device drivers in the kernel". If we did that for say IPv4, IPv6, etc... that would dramatically reduce the functionality of Linux as it stands today. So much would need to change to accomodate a wholesale shift to Userland. Well of course it has been a discussion since (before) linux was first developed. The monolithic vs microkernel discussion. However, you should not compare it to IPv4 or IPv6. The issue is not whether network protocols technologically belong in the kernel, but whether it is sustainable to keep protocols that are used by about 100 users out of a Linux user population of billions can be kept in the kernel and survive every restructuring of the kernel without being damaged beyond usability because people are making changes and don't (because they cannot) test them in real use. Apparently not. So it is better to go for a solution that works. I have been running my version of NET on top of the kernel SCC card driver for quite some time, and there were no issues like this. It had a separate IP address and was connected to the kernel IP stack via tun/tap. Of course that is not a solution for socket applications using AX.25 but something similar could be done. Rob

6 years, 1 month

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

44net