11 Aug
2021
11 Aug
'21
3:29 p.m.
On 11/8/21 6:00 pm, Toussaint OTTAVI via 44Net wrote:
IRLP actually uses its own name resolution, which works well for IRLP
nodws, even those on dynamic IPs. But reflectors are assumed to be on
static IPs and appear to be hardcoded into the system. And it seems
something similar for D-STAR REFxxx reflectors. But I use FQDNs
wherever possible, for the reasons you state. And that also makes
enabling IPv6, when it becomes available for a service easy (Just add an
AAAA record and stir gently ;) ).
I see this as potentially simplifying routing for those
of us running
dual ported systems.
--
73 de Tony VK3JED/VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com
Our current design is the result of several iterations
in the last few
years, and from several talks with Jann DG8NGN, (one of the founders
and network managers of European Hamnet, and currently Chairman of the
TAC) :
- Our first design was using 10.44.0.0/16 "private" addressing and
NAT. Sufficient for inter-connecting sites, but NAT headaches for
inbound traffic.
- Then, we migrated to 44.168 "Intranet" addressing, Hamnet-style, but
with no IP-IP implementation (dislike the tech, and no current need to
route outside of the island)
- When 44.190 specs were published for Internet-connected things, we
got a subnet and announced it using BGP and a $5 Vultr VPS. We
deployed it for our XLX, D-Star and DMR stuff.
- As we were testing, and we did not know in advance which addressing
scheme would be the best for a specific situation, we decided to
implement dual addressing on all locations.
44.190 came about right at the time I
was about to renumber, and has
been a great asset for me.
Dual-addressing is a bit tricky to setup when you start from scratch.
But once understood and implemented on a model with a "POP" and
"Access routers", it's just a matter of copy-paste of configurations.
As we are on a very small scale, we do it manually. But there should
be no problems to write configuration-builder scripts for use on a
larger scale.
I have done similar before. I run several networks on the one wire,
so
I'm no stranger to complex routing setups. :)
I've got over 200 IPs, and the most annoying
part is that a couple of
the addresses require manual intervention by the administrators of
services (D-STAR REF admin and IRLP admins),
This would not be necessary if those admins/designers used DNS names
instead of static IPs in their systems, HI :-) I never understood why
FQDN names are not used more in D-Star / DMR / Digital modes in
general... However. I am open to this complex renumbering
operation, if the
proposal results in a viable long term structure. I can certainly see
the routing advantages, the more I think about it. So, I'm
conditionally for this proposal - the condition is that it's done
properly. I am one who wants both Internet and Intranet connectivity.
+1. I am a network designer. I don't want to choose or force something
for my users. Every end-user should be able to choose which addressing
scheme to use according to its own needs. As network admins, I think
we have to provide both addressing schemes to our users, in a simpler
and more standardized way.