10 Apr
2014
10 Apr
'14
8:51 p.m.
On 04/10/2014 01:24 PM, lleachii(a)aol.com wrote:
Tom,
If I understand you correctly, even if the portal allowed you to enter a 44 address as an
IPIP endpoint, my 44GW (and many others) would be able to send traffic to it.
Since I wrote a script that quite a few people with Ubuntu Linux Gateways use (which was
designed to closely mimic AMPRGW's behavior), here is what would occur (I cannot
confirm this for other gateways using different OSes or scripts):
see:
http://kb3vwg-013.ampr.org/startampr
- the gateways using the KB3VWG Linux script are set to use a custom routing table if the
SRC or DST address is 44.0.0.0/8
- the rip44 then adds all 44 routes to the 44 routing table
- so, as you wish
a.) rip44 would add your tunneled subnet (44.24.240.0/20) to routing table 44 with an
endpoint address as 44.24.221.1
b.) a host in my subnet sends your subnet a packet and is received by my router
c.) it looks up the endpoint destination on table 44 and finds that it's 44.24.221.1
d.) my router will look in the routing table for 44.24.221.1 finds
**44.24.221.1 via 169.228.66.251 dev tunl0**
*****which would be **INVALID*****
OK, let me stop your email right here. Why did your router choose tunl0
as the next-hop when we don't announce any special route for
44.24.221.0/24? Your router seems to have made a routing mistake here.
It should have chosen the default route (0.0.0.0/0) to send the packet
since it has no special information about 44.24.221.0/24.
Does that realization clear things up?
--Bart
> e.) **INVALID***My GW sends an encapsulated packet to AMPRGW, and it's received
on it's WAN interface. ***AMPRGW should not receive encapsulated packets from 44 hosts
destined to 44 hosts*** Routing loops can occur.
>
> - there have been IPIP tunnels in the past with 44 addresses, they were considered
invalid configurations. To the Internet, 44 net is a flat /8 network and all subnets must
be reachable at a non-44 address; which leads me to my last point
>
> - I'm not sure why you keep insisting that AMPR routing is "broken" or
has "funky 44net issues," you are requesting something that was not intended in
the design, as was mentioned before tunnels msut be reachable with non-44 address, BGP
routed subnets must still maintain a IPIP GW.
>
> - This same topic was presented in April 2012, check the archive "
> ***"This will also means that any Operator that wishes to BGP should also
consider also running the AMPR standard rip44d on the same device, if the intention is to
make all 44/8 addresses equally reachable from any PoP, eventually, as is the intend
purpose of BGP."***
>
> - it was my intention update the script to include a block of IPENCAP from 44.0.0.0/8
SRC addresses...until I read your posts today
>
>
> 73,
>
> Lynwood
> KB3VWG
>
>
> Tom wrote:
>
>
>> Forget AMPRGW. I understand there is a routing issue at UCSD that
>> breaks 44net routing for AMPRGW. But I'm not asking about AMPRGW! I'm
>> asking about routing from all the IPIP gateways, none of which have
>> 44net endpoints at the moment.
>>
>> Since none of the current IPIP gateways have 44net endpoints, you
>> cannot say with certainty that it won't work until the portal lets us
>> try it.
>>
>> Tom KD7LXL
>
>
>
>
>
>
>