14 Jun
2015
14 Jun
'15
3:35 p.m.
Subject:
Re: [44net] Strange Broadcasts...
From:
Bryan Fields <Bryan(a)bryanfields.net>
Date:
06/13/2015 11:59 PM
To:
AMPRNet working group <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu>
On 6/13/15 4:05 PM, Don Fanning wrote:
Your problem is that you want to try to talk us into believing that we have a problem
with
reliability, while for most of us it is clear that we first and foremost have a problem
with
existance. The amateur digital network is nearly dead, we are trying to revive it and
make
it thrive like it did in the early days, a network built and operated by hobbyists, and
you
are continuously trying to impress us with your knowledge about professional networks and
your concerns about failure modes.
Furthermore, you try to enforce your ideas by criticizing the efforts of volunteers and
trying
to do a coup d'etat. It does not work that way. When you have a real improvement
to
introduce you should demonstrate how to do it in a way compatible to what others are
doing,
and understanding.
What I find a joke is that you are concerned about having a single point of failure, and
then
roll out a solution that does not work *at all* under some static circumstances.
Better have a single point of failure in a network that works most of the time, than a
network
that never works OK.
(some pure theorist may disagree with that and claim that something that never works is
more
reliable that something that works 99.9% of the time, but I am not in that camp)
Rob
>IPIP would also get the
>benefit of possibly routing EIGRP between IPIP mesh sites so that if one
>BGP route were to have catastrophic failure, another BGP announced route
>would already be announced and EIGRP would route to that end point.
This is a
joke, correct?
You're proposing fixing broken routing using a non-standard protocol. IIRC
EIGRP uses IP multicast for announcements (same as OSPF) so you'd need to run
it over some sort of tunnel (gre) interface anyways.
Just use BGP with a private AS up to the edge Internet connected BGP nodes if
you're building tunnels.
Tim Osburn and myself (and others) had proposed standards based way to move
the IPIP tunnels to a redundant gateway design a few years back. It's not
hard, but there is no movement from ARDC to actually move forward with it.
I'd be happy with a study of proposed ideas, at least it's forward movement.