27 May
2022
27 May
'22
4:43 a.m.
I think the main issue in this endeavor is to attract more users to our
network.
Proficient users may use whatever alternatives they like, and they have
the necessary knowledge to do it.
The problem is the networking novice, which may have basic networking
skills, but lack the "advanced" part, and of course the regular or
occasional user, which requires plain network access, without backups,
fall backs, roaming, fixed location independent addresses and other
goodies, using SOHO class equipment..
For such users, a regional POP access using standard VPN technologies
and optional standard routing protocols is a perfect opportunity to get
a foothold in this domain while the POPs themselves provide network
integration and backbone routing (no matter what the technology behind -
it may well be our current mesh for the beginning, and various
connection techniques to the POP really don't matter as long as they are
well supported). The most important thing is that the access should be
as plain and transparent as possible for a novice, and require the
dumbest equipment possible for permanent access.
Advanced features may come late on a need to use basis, after the
initial learning curve. Let's create momentum by expanding the user base
first and worry about advanced user level stuff later, keeping the
wizardry at POP level.
Marius, YO2LOJ
On 27/05/2022 11:52, Rob PE1CHL via 44net wrote:
Of course, but the reason I proposed this was that
when suggesting a
PoP network where
everyone would connect and send their traffic via probably 2 PoP hops
to the destination
was that there was the immediate reaction that "this would be so much
less efficient" and
"I want to send my traffic directly to the guy I am BBS forwarding to"
etc.
So in my design that is perfectly possible, you can setup a private
tunnel to anyone and
when using BGP that will automatically be taken as a shorter path. Of
course it would even
be possible with static routing.
And indeed, a first level of fallback could be created using some list
of PoPs to call and selecting
an alternative when the first is unreachable. Will depend on the
router software what is
easier to achieve: two permanent connections and autorouting, or two
connections with
only one being active at any time.
My point is that the such a network is much more flexible than the
IPIP mesh we have now,
which essentially is using static routing and cannot handle any
alternatives.
Rob
On 5/27/22 01:02, John D. Hays via 44net wrote:
Another approach would be auto-failover between
PoPs in client routers.
On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 10:59 AM Rob PE1CHL via 44net
<44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> wrote:
Yes, that is also part of my design. An entry-level user can
connect to a single PoP and get "their subnet" routed to them,
and route all other Net44 space towards that PoP. Simple, static
routing.
A more advanced user can make multiple PoP connections and use
BGP to send and receive individual subnet routes, and let their
local router decide to which of the PoPs to send each packet.
That would also cover the case where a PoP is down and all
traffic is routed via the remaining one(s).
These users can also have cross-connections to other users (via
radio or direct tunnels) and the routing remains correct.
--
John D. Hays
Kingston, WA
K7VE / WRJT-215
_______________________________________________
44net mailing list --44net(a)mailman.ampr.org
To unsubscribe send an email to44net-leave(a)mailman.ampr.org
_______________________________________________
44net mailing list --44net(a)mailman.ampr.org
To unsubscribe send an email to44net-leave(a)mailman.ampr.org