Lynwood,
On 29.12.20 at 14:20 wrote lleachii@aol.com:
- I tested on a Ubuntu system, so the 'sudo modprobe -r ipip' command
worked as tested. I gleaned to use it '-r' from the Startampr wiki (I developed the script with PE1CHL and others on the mailing group here). Therefore, I cannot speak specifically to why Debian automatically pre-loads the Kernel module. Can you explain the issue this presents for you?
It doesn't present any issues at all. I just didn't understand and I was curious. Many of the scripts on the wiki unfortunately are only recipes without much help if you want to learn "cooking". I just wanted to understand. So if I ask: why does it say: tunl0@NONE I wanted an answer for this, but what I got (another list) was something like: this is ok, don't bother. I don't think that this is what an interested student should be satisfied with.
Could a firewall rule fix it? You only have a single /32 IP - this shouldn't cause a major issue to your setup.
Yes I have a single host now, but I hope to get a larger space to extend my learning.
- Can you show the Wiki URL you're referencing that tells you to make a
route for 44.0.0.0/9 and 44.128.0.0/10 - so it may be corrected?
Sure, but since you wrote that you are a coauthor of this script, I possibly didn't yet understand its meaning in full:
https://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/wapr/tcpip/startampr via https://www.qsl.net/k/kb9mwr//wapr/tcpip/ampr-ripd.html via https://wiki.ampr.org/wiki/Setting_up_a_gateway_on_Linux#Example_Gateway_Con...
Oh, ah! Now if I try to recap: Can it be the case that you read "route" where I wrote "rule"?
I know the routes to be invalid; because they do not specify where those subnets in the /9 and /10 are exactly located (e.g. your IP 86.5x.x.42 to reach 44.130.240.3/32).
Of course, because it is rules, not routes.
That's what ampr-ripd or rip44d does. You should now be able to see valid routes by running the command 'ip route show table 44'
Works like a charm.
- You noted you're running ampr-ripd...but answered no....that confused
me, but nonetheless I see it's running successfully; perhaps it was semantics or a language barrier.
I've corrected the issue. Sorry, I read only the last part ripd44 and said no. After I hit the send button I have seen what I wrote :-(
btw: mni tnx for the script!
73 de roland, oe1rsa