13 Jun
2015
13 Jun
'15
4:05 p.m.
Alright, let's take this a different route.
What would it take to make IPIP mesh more robust?
If BGP capable nodes were to announce and route for IPIP endpoints within
it's endpoint, that would remove the SPOF at UCSD. IPIP would also get the
benefit of possibly routing EIGRP between IPIP mesh sites so that if one
BGP route were to have catastrophic failure, another BGP announced route
would already be announced and EIGRP would route to that end point. Would
mean a bit more traffic over RF reliant upstream networks but I think we
have the technology for that.
The software package tinc does a fine job of creating dynamic self polling
mesh vpn networks (example: CCC ChaosNET). If you were to employ the
quagga suite on top of that, you could preference out your routes among the
tinc endpoints. BGP would announce that the end point is available at
whatever depending on the highest quality of the EIGRP link.
http://blog.ine.com/2009/05/01/understanding-unequal-cost-load-balancing/
On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Nigel Vander Houwen <nigel(a)k7nvh.com>
wrote:
> (Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
> _______________________________________________
> Rob,
>
> Thank you for making my point. The reason you can’t use a 44/8 address for
> a tunnel endpoint is because routing is broken.
>
> Nigel
>
> > On Jun 13, 2015, at 12:24, Rob Janssen <pe1chl(a)amsat.org> wrote:
> >
> > (Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rob Janssen wrote:
> >> When you put up a system that announces a BGP route on Internet, you
> should also make
> >> that system part of the IPIP mesh for the same subnet that you
> advertise on BGP.
> >
> > ... with a tunnel endpoint address that is OUTSIDE network 44.0.0.0/8
> >
> > Rob
> >