44net

44net@mailman.ampr.org

4 participants
3196 discussions

Re: [44net] AX25 support on Linux based (Raspberry PI) node
by Rob Janssen 16 Mar '19

16 Mar '19

> Is there a place where we can get the latest unofficial patches? Has anyone considered a fork to keep it relevant to modern kernels? I would say it is best to remove all AX.25 code from the kernel and use one or more userspace programs to provide the functionality instead. It is just too difficult to keep some seldomly used feature working in the kernel working without testing (as outlined by David). And once there is a problem, it is almost impossible to get it fixed and very difficult to propagate fixes to end-user systems. Put only device drivers in the kernel, not the actual protocol code. Rob

2 1

Re: [44net] BGP routes in RIP transmissions - Using ampr-ripd in parallel with BGP ?
by Rob Janssen 14 Mar '19

14 Mar '19

> - May I encounter routing issues with some clients ? > - Is it recommended to deploy ampr-ripd in parallel with BGP ? You won't encounter problems with traffic to other systems on internet and also not with other AMPRnet systems routed via BGP, but some of the traditional AMPRnet networks that are only routed via IPIP will be unreachable when you do not run IPIP tunnels in parallel to your BGP announcement, or at best they will be routed via San Diego, USA which of course affects delay and packet loss values. I cannot judge if this will affect your system. However, when your router system is capable of running ampr-ripd or another solution for IPIP tunnels (e.g. the scripts for RouterOS or the recent solution for Juniper) I think it is always a good idea to install one of them. Rob

3 2

Re: [44net] BGP routes in RIP transmissions -- CANCELLED
by Rob Janssen 13 Mar '19

13 Mar '19

> What's this "snow" thing? And can it be routed over the 44 net? ;P It can sometimes affect the routing over UHF/SHF radio links. But is anyone using those, or is only internet routing used? Here we have had lots of rain and strong winds over the past week. The antennas are shaking and I cannot work on my OSCAR 100 uplink. My WiFi AMPRnet link to the radio tower nearby is affected due to a tree in the path. Rob

2 1

gateway on 0.0.0.0 entry in the portal
by R P 13 Mar '19

13 Mar '19

0.0.0.0 2019-02-16 11:36:03 F4BWT View<https://portal.ampr.org/gateways_list.php?a=view&id=1787> What is that ? Regards Ronen - 4Z4ZQ

2 1

Re: [44net] BGP routes in RIP transmissions -- CANCELLED
by Rob Janssen 13 Mar '19

13 Mar '19

> If you have a 44net subnet behind your router, machines that do not have DNS entries at ampr.org will not be able to reach BGPed networks, because amprgw requires any host passing traffic through it must have such a DNS entry. > At the moment, simply removing the default route in your ampr table solves this and routes those hosts vis ISP NAT. > By automatically creating individual routes for BGP subnets make this a little more diffcult, and breaks existing working setups. Even if this is not a big issue for people with good networking knowledge, it breaks things for those that should have expected a simpler setup and are not profficient in networking, contrary to the initial goal of the proposal. I think it is a little broader than this. When you have a BGP routed subnet yourself, and you run ampr-ripd in parallel to improve connectivity to IPIP-only subnets, you force the traffic to other BGP routed subnets via amprgw where they would much more efficiently be routed directly. (without NAT) Of course a special version of ampr-ripd could be made that ignores those routes when some flag is given. You could release such a version and advertise its existence here, give everyone involved the opportunity to install it, and only then make the change. Rob

8 9

what version NNTP to put in
by R P 13 Mar '19

13 Mar '19

Hi there does anyone know what ver of server (1 2 3) i have to put on my cisco SNTP if i want to use the following NNTP server s ? 44.24.244.4 and 44.60.44.1 Thanks Forward Ronen - 4Z4ZQ

1 0

Re: [44net] 44Net Digest, Vol 8, Issue 35
by Roger 12 Mar '19

12 Mar '19

So I would be one of those with weak networking knowledge :( That said, would the proposed change have improved connectivity? I’m finding that not everyone is able to connect to my tunnel setup. I even noticed 3 days last week where N1URO.amor.org, was not reachable from untunnelled devices, like my cellphone and isp. If the changes would improve connectivity, even if people like me would need some instruction and tutoring, maybe it should be considered. Roger VA7VH > On Mar 12, 2019, at 12:00, 44net-request(a)mailman.ampr.org wrote: > > Send 44Net mailing list submissions to > 44net(a)mailman.ampr.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > 44net-request(a)mailman.ampr.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > 44net-owner(a)mailman.ampr.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of 44Net digest..." > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: BGP routes in RIP transmissions -- CANCELLED > (Toussaint OTTAVI) > 2. Re: BGP routes in RIP transmissions -- CANCELLED (Brian Kantor) > 3. Re: BGP routes in RIP transmissions -- CANCELLED (Marius Petrescu) > <mime-attachment> > <mime-attachment> > <mime-attachment> > _______________________________________________ > 44Net mailing list > 44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org > https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net

1 0

Re: [44net] BGP routes in RIP transmissions -- CANCELLED
by Rob Janssen 12 Mar '19

12 Mar '19

> Of course a special version of ampr-ripd could be made that ignores those routes when some flag is given. Or rather: add a flag that specifies an alternate route table number where those routes will be stored instead of the main table or the table specified with -t A special value (0, -1) could be used to entirely ignore those routes. Rob

1 0

BGP routes in RIP transmissions
by Brian Kantor 12 Mar '19

12 Mar '19

Hello, Beginning on March 15th, the pseudo-RIP transmissions from amprgw will include the various subnet prefixes which are being advertised by BGP. They will show a next-hop address of 169.228.34.84, which is amprgw. Marius assures me that this will cause no harm, and will enable tunnel-only AMPRNet hosts to reach those destinations via the tunnel. He says that many tunnel-connected hosts have a semi-default route to amprgw that has to be manually installed when the system is set up; this would now be automatic when employing the various ampr-rip programs. Quoting Marius: So, wouldn't it make sense to publish BGP routed networks that do not have 'tunnel ' set in the portal as RIP routes using amprgw as gateway? This would solve some issues: - Users could actually see all reachable destinations in their route list - Users could easily identify BGP networks by checking 169.228.34.84 as their gateway - they could drop the setting of that 'default' route in the ampr routing table, allowing a (implicit) throw to the main table. This will make it easier to reach local or directly connected ampr networks (which now need routes placed in the ampr table). Also, unknown destinations would be NATed to the system's gateway, without putting any additional traffic to amprgw. - it would also allow to have all routes in a single routing table while being able to reach tunneled and BGPd networks using their AMPR address without policy routing. Existing set-ups would not affected by such a change in any way. Marius, YO2LOJ Please be sure to let me know if there are any problems with this change; it can be reverted in a matter of moments if an unexpected difficulty does arise. - Brian

3 5

Connected via VPN, now what?
by Mike Saeger 07 Mar '19

07 Mar '19

I connected via VPN. IPv4 Address. . . . . . . . . . . : 44.139.11.22 Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.252 My DHCP server is 44.139.11.21. I am not able to ping that server. I can't ping ampr.org. Actually, I tried pinging several IP addresses and nothing is returned. I'm trying to figure out if connecting via VPN is of any useful value? Mike N9MS

4 3

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

44net