Re: [44net] Proposal on using the "Radio" flag

Maybe there is time rethink a little our gatewaying approach to solve the BGP/IPIP issue. Some thoughts on this... So we have: - TUNNEL - reachable via IPIP - BGP - directly reachable on the Internet Having none of the connectivity flags set actually means "isolated", or "island", or whatever (isolated seems more sugestive to me). That radio flag is in fact not needed. IMHO the only thing missing at the moment is the possibility of the ampr-gw to forward traffic from the IPIP mesh network from tunnels to BGP announced networks (BGP flag set, TUNNEL not set) in the same way as with regular IP addresses. This would work flawless with the current addressing scheme: - IPIP to IPIP go directly via tunnels - BGP to BGP of course works directly via Internet - BGP to IPIP results in a correct routing via 44.0.0.1 (I can not check if it is filtered at ampr-gw, it probably is) The only thing missing is IPIP to BGP connectivity via the ampr-gw which is filtered. Assuming the last function could be implemented (IPIP to BGP via ampr-gw), in regard to publishing these BGP routes, there are 2 options: - Not published at all in the encap data, leaving the routing options to the GW administrator (e.g. all 44/8 via 169.228.66.251). The downside would be that invalid addresses are forwarded resulting in higher ampr-gw traffic - Published as subnets with gateway 169.228.66.251 in encap and RIP - this option would drop the traffic to invalid addresses. This approach could actually solve the interconnection issues for the 2 ampr network types. 73s de Marius, YO2LOJ