11 Aug
2021
11 Aug
'21
3 p.m.
Hi Tony,
Le 11/08/2021 à 09:05, Tony Langdon via 44Net a écrit :
Looks like you're effectively doing what the TAC
is proposing, but on a
smaller scale, which is a good model to start from.
Our current design is the result of several iterations in the last few
years, and from several talks with Jann DG8NGN, (one of the founders and
network managers of European Hamnet, and currently Chairman of the TAC) :
- Our first design was using 10.44.0.0/16 "private" addressing and NAT.
Sufficient for inter-connecting sites, but NAT headaches for inbound
traffic.
- Then, we migrated to 44.168 "Intranet" addressing, Hamnet-style, but
with no IP-IP implementation (dislike the tech, and no current need to
route outside of the island)
- When 44.190 specs were published for Internet-connected things, we got
a subnet and announced it using BGP and a $5 Vultr VPS. We deployed it
for our XLX, D-Star and DMR stuff.
- As we were testing, and we did not know in advance which addressing
scheme would be the best for a specific situation, we decided to
implement dual addressing on all locations.
Dual-addressing is a bit tricky to setup when you start from scratch.
But once understood and implemented on a model with a "POP" and "Access
routers", it's just a matter of copy-paste of configurations. As we are
on a very small scale, we do it manually. But there should be no
problems to write configuration-builder scripts for use on a larger scale.
I've got over 200 IPs, and the most annoying part
is that a couple of
the addresses require manual intervention by the administrators of
services (D-STAR REF admin and IRLP admins),
This would not be necessary if those admins/designers used DNS names
instead of static IPs in their systems, HI :-) I never understood why
FQDN names are not used more in D-Star / DMR / Digital modes in general...
However. I am open to this complex renumbering
operation, if the
proposal results in a viable long term structure. I can certainly see
the routing advantages, the more I think about it. So, I'm
conditionally for this proposal - the condition is that it's done
properly. I am one who wants both Internet and Intranet connectivity.
+1. I am a network designer. I don't want to choose or force something
for my users. Every end-user should be able to choose which addressing
scheme to use according to its own needs. As network admins, I think we
have to provide both addressing schemes to our users, in a simpler and
more standardized way.
73 de TK1BI