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

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@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@mailman.ampr.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 44net-leave@mailman.ampr.org

_______________________________________________
44net mailing list -- 44net@mailman.ampr.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 44net-leave@mailman.ampr.org