MARius makes a good point. A few months ago I didn't like the use of RIP
but the ip encapsulation also is a low overhead tunnel. I've got OSPF
working here and I can inject the AMPRNet routes in there IF I want onto
my private non-AMPR lan. RIght now I don't and I gateway through my
router. My watchguard firewall handles all internet traffic EXCEPTING my
own AMPRnet --> Internet I gateway it out through my watchguard doing a
NAT I believe. It works
Marius - would you like to do some OSPF?
Leon
On 3/9/2016 3:33 AM, Marius Petrescu wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
Why we use IPIP and a full mesh?
Because IPIP is the simplest tunneling protocol, and the only IPv4
tunnel with available point to multipoint support on some systems
(which simplifies the setup a lot, unfortunately routers do not
support it).
And because a full mesh is the only architecture tolerating arbitrary
gateway breakdowns without affecting other gateways/subnets, and it
does not have a single point of failure.
All of you want BGP and OSPF. Nice. And how do you implement that in a
full mesh fashion? Where do you get the mesh peer information from?
The answer is simple, either from a central server like the one we
have now, offering something like the ipencap file for static configs,
the RIP broadcasts for dynamic configuration and the portal API for
scripting purposes, or you can drop the mesh concept, falling back to
standard gateway architectures like the classic client/ISP level
internet setup.
For a mesh this information gathering step can not be circumvented.
Even if we change routing protocols, you still need to know your peers
BEFORE being able to set up BGP or OSPF.
And if you know your peers, you can know their subnets, too. So there
is actually no need for a routing protocol running on a limited
bandwidth network, because the information is already there, in your
peering data.
Of course, no one stops you from privately peering with other systems
and using these protocols (I do...). But there is no real need to do it.
Marius, YO2LOJ
-----Original Message----- From: f1sca
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2016 10:03
To: 'AMPRNet working group'
Subject: Re: [44net] Is there raceroutre machine on 44 net available
forpublic ?
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
Totally agree with you Ronen. Our AMPRNET should be designed and work as
Internet, on waves. Tunneling should be considered
As a work around of lack of radio link.
Why do we need to steel use IPIP ? Can't we try to test other routing
schemes ?
Regards
F1SCA
-----Message d'origine-----
De : 44Net
[mailto:44net-bounces+f1sca=numericable.fr@hamradio.ucsd.edu] De
la part de R P
Envoyé : mercredi 9 mars 2016 08:28
À : AMPRNet working group <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu>
Objet : Re: [44net] Is there raceroutre machine on 44 net available for
public ?
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
When I now start to re alive our amprnet the main goal was to
treat the
network as a Backup for "other Networks"
for emergencies as example (and because of it i plan to make a backbone
high speed country wide Wifi Based in order not to be depended on
any wire
connection)
I looked on the AMPRNET network as a "HF network" and then i
discovered
that the network not act as a real mesh ...
I can not connect from my ampr net to certain ampr nets
Now lets take a case that the hams community in Thailand have a
disaster
and we (the rest of the ham community ) want to help them ... but
unfortunately we have no contact to their network ... and why ?
because we
use "old technologies" like ENCAP TABLE or even worse because the
Gateway operator didnt put the whole encap table in his gateway (from his
own reasons)
All over the world the Governments (but not only them) looked on the
ham
radios as peoples that in communication disaster can make contact with
their radios , unfortunately i can not say it on the amprnet even
in non
disaster situations
Currently the only advantage of the AMPRNET as i see it is the big
address space we have that we can transfer on a single IP that are
transparent and can be accessed from the outside world but thats not
what i
would like to see the AMPRNET
I would like to see it be able to be connected like Net/Rom can do or
Like OSPF or any other "smart routing protocols"
then I know that in a "real situation" i will be able to gain
access any
part of the AMPR network because the Network itself take care of its
connectivity and as long as the specific network have any kind of
connection to the outside world (RF or Wire) the network will be
able to
reach it
I know we can do it we have in our community the world best experts in
their field and a huge knowledge and good willing
Im willing to help as needed in any subject that i can ....
Best Regards
Ronen - 4Z4ZQ
http://www.ronen.org
________________________________________
From: 44Net <44net-bounces+ronenp=hotmail.com(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu> on
behalf
of Leon D. Zetekoff <wa4zlw(a)backwoodswireless.net>
Sent: Tuesday, March 8, 2016 4:08 PM
To: 44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
Subject: Re: [44net] Is there raceroutre machine on 44 net available for
public ?
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
. We are still in the 1990s
network wise and we need to jump the shark and get into this century.
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net