27 Aug
2013
27 Aug
'13
5:17 p.m.
The idea of route servers/route reflectors isn't bad at all.
However as some host might connect from dynamic IP addresses you will
need to come up with something additional to authenticate the remote
gateways.
73 de Marc
Quoting Michael E Fox - N6MEF <n6mef(a)mefox.org>rg>:
> (Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
> _______________________________________________
> Eric,
> Today, the list of tunnels, whether distributed by the encaps file
> or via RIP, are really just a list of whatever is configured in the
> portal. Even though they may be distributed by RIP, RIP is being
> used merely as a distribution mechanism. The existence of an entry
> in the list tells you nothing about whether that tunnel is actually
> up or not -- only that it has been configured in the portal. So,
> even if there were multiple RIP speakers, you'd get the same info
> except for the main gateway/default route.
>
> What I think you're describing is more like a route reflector such
> as are used in Internet BGP networks. The clients would identify
> themselves to the main gateway, and the main gateway would reflect
> that info back to all other clients. That would provide the dynamic
> routing that would be helpful. And, if the clients could announce
> additional routes to the server, we could have dynamic alternate
> routes. Couple that with regional reflectors and the option to
> listen to more than one reflector so you can get dynamic default
> route, and I think we've got something.
>
> The code for BGP route reflectors is public domain, so I wonder if
> it makes sense to adapt it to RIP.
>
> Michael
> N6MEF
>
>
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Eric Fort <eric.fort(a)gmail.com>
> Date: 08/27/2013 1:33 AM (GMT-08:00)
> To: AMPRNet working group <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu>
> Subject: Re: [44net] Multiple gateways for same route
>
> (Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
> _______________________________________________
> ok, multiple static routes to the same place I can see why not. We do have
> dynamic routing available to us though via RIP. Would RIP or another
> routing protocol not handle this in the case of the route being unreliable
> and drop that route? Why must routes be persistent rather than dynamic?
> In a larger sense and I realize we're not there yet it would seem that
> rather than having to know the routes to all other 44net hosts from boot it
> would be much easier to have each area (for instance each /16 or maybe in
> some cases each /24) to have a designated router (say at .1) or possibly
> use multicast to discover one's local router. thus the initial config is
> simplified as it has a single route to the 44net gateway for it's area from
> which it may discover via dynamic routing other routes. no more need to
> manually distribute and update a routing table. This seems to be something
> to work towards.
>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 7:55 AM, <Bob(a)qbjnet.com> wrote:
>
>> (Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
>> _______________________________________________
>> No they shouldn't both be allowed. There isn't a way to dynamically
choose
>> the
>> route based on whether one or the other connection is up. Packets sent to
>> the
>> down route are simply lost.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bob
>>
>>
>> "Eric Fort <eric.fort(a)gmail.com> says:"
>> > (Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > are these 2 entries for a single route or 2 separate routes to a single
>> > destination? It seems to me they are actually separate redundant routes
>> to
>> > the same /21. should redundant routes not be allowed? It would seem
>> quite
>> > the reverse that redundancy being useful and importaint these ought to be
>> > allowed to stand so long as they are valid routes to the specified /21.
>> >
>> > Eric
>> > AF6EP
>> >
>> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 2:54 AM, G1FEF <chris(a)g1fef.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> > > (Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Hi Marc,
>> > >
>> > > No, there should not be two entries for one route and the portal
should
>> > > not allow this to happen, so I will look into how it occurred and
>> amend the
>> > > code as necessary.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Chris
>>
>> --
>> /~\ The ASCII | Bob Brose N0QBJ
>> \ / Ribbon Campaign | http://www.qbjnet.com/
>> X Help cure | mailto:bob@qbjnet.com
>> / \ HTML Email | public key at http://www.qbjnet.com/key.html
>>
>> There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand
>> binary, and those who don't
>> _________________________________________
>> 44Net mailing list
>> 44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
>> http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
>> http://www.ampr.org/donate.html
>>
>