26 Apr
2014
26 Apr
'14
12:38 a.m.
I have no problem with IPIP tunnels. I just don't think it is the best
architecture to have every node maintaining IPIP routes to every other
node, a tiered network and one or two neighbors for each node is easier to
setup and maintain. My goal is to get more people using 44net.
BTW, if anyone has in their EMComm plan that 44net will give them
connectivity, "When all else fails..." it is a delusion. Even if you have
IPIP tunnels, you have to have Internet connectivity to get to the other
end of the tunnel. If you have IPIP connectivity, you have Internet
connectivity and can pass the traffic over standard channels.
In a real Emcomm (less than 1% of network utilization), you just have to
get traffic to a relay point. Your RF network may or may not get you
there, but your IPIP tunnel doesn't give you any advantage over the ISP you
are connected to.
------------------------------
John D. Hays
K7VE
PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223
<http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>
<http://www.facebook.com/john.d.hays>
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Ryan Elliott Turner <ryan.e.t(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
In the IPIP tunnels, on both ends, you have a single point of failure since
you cannot multihome (as discussed 25 MAR "Can't add redundant AMPR gateway
to portal").
I know that the network I'm building as well as a few other BGP announced
networks are multihomed -- no single point of failure to the internet. In
fact, we have planned for one of the BGP announcements and peering to take
place at one of our RF point of presences.
Another advantage is latency... having traffic travel from Memphis to San
Diego and back just to get from my cellphone to a 44net-connected server in
the same room is disappointing.