Re: [44net] What is 44net?

agreed, pretty much exactly what I was getting at. Peering in the BGP sense. Eric AF6EP On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 3:54 PM, K7VE - John <k7ve(a)k7ve.org> wrote: > (Please trim inclusions from previous messages) > _______________________________________________ > I think the better model is BGP "nodes" which provide VPN to subnets. > The BGP node admins would provide the VPN authentication to know what > subnets were attaching and BGP would provide Internet connectivity > (including subnets). > > ________________________________ > John D. Hays > K7VE > PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223 > > > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Don Fanning <don(a)00100100.net> wrote: > > (Please trim inclusions from previous messages) > > _______________________________________________ > > Why mesh? I'm not seeing any advantage with mesh that you wouldn't have > > with the RIP broadcasts? I do agree that intra RIP packets may be > > warranted if networks with multiple gateways start popping up. Plus > > there's always the chicken and the egg part in that how would you > > authenticate and add new tunnels/bootstrap new nodes? > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Eric Fort <eric.fort(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> (Please trim inclusions from previous messages) > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Actually you *BOTH* have it wrong. What I'm suggesting is exactly the > use > >> of *DYNAMIC* routing and routing protocols with no need for the encap > file > >> whatsoever with each subnet peering with the other subnets which they > >> decide to voluntarily exchange traffic with. The connection between > said > >> subnets being done over an authenticated connection. Various subnets > then > >> provide transit to other non peered subnets by use of dynamic routing > >> protocols. As it is right now with the tunnel mesh and encap.txt I'm as > >> obligated to accept (and route) traffic from miscreant.ampr.org as I am > >> from saint.ampr.org (at least if I follow the principles embodied in > the > >> full mesh concept). > >> > >> Eric > >> AF6EP > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Marius Petrescu <marius(a)yo2loj.ro> > wrote: > >> > >> > (Please trim inclusions from previous messages) > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > No, the suggestion is to drop the whole encap stuff and do manual > P2P... > >> > And take down the whole global interconnection concept. > >> > > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: 44net-bounces+marius=yo2loj.ro(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu > >> > [mailto:44net-bounces+marius=yo2loj.ro@hamradio.ucsd.edu] On Behalf > Of > >> > lleachii(a)aol.com > >> > Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 23:20 > >> > To: lleachii(a)aol.com; 44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu > >> > Subject: Re: [44net] What is 44net? > >> > > >> > (Please trim inclusions from previous messages) > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > Eric, > >> > > >> > So you're suggesting we totally do away with dynamic routing; and each > >> > station setup (and keep updated) routes to others GWs manually? > >> > > >> > > >> > -KB3VWG > >> > > >> > > >> >