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@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@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@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@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@hamradio.ucsd.edu [mailto:44net-bounces+marius=yo2loj.ro@hamradio.ucsd.edu] On Behalf
Of
lleachii@aol.com Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 23:20 To: lleachii@aol.com; 44net@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