6 Sep
2013
6 Sep
'13
7:11 p.m.
Brian,
I see a lot more use for 44-Net then routing to 1200 baud AX.25 endpoints.
Puget Sound (area around Seattle) is building a 150 mbit WiFi network for
amateur radio called Hamwan (Hamwan.Org) they will be managing a /22 or
better LAN with direct BGP.
Repeater linking of digital voice (D-STAR, EchoLink, IRLP, AllStar) --
these need minimized jitter (easier on minimized hops and encapsulation).
How about MPEG encoded amateur digital TV? Or file servers / Websites that
can deliver content for Amateur Radio.
Cross linking HSMM-Mesh via net-44?
Real time monitoring and control systems... and so on.
I think we need to think of all of the various IP based amateur radio
related services that can be delivered and encapsulation besides AX.25,
like D-STAR Digital Data, and one that mimics Ethernet on RF Lans.
I have been coordinator for Utah (now for Western Washington), there are 3
main population centers with significant miles in between and large (1000s
of square miles) areas to be covered. RF linking isn't always possible.
Also, I want it to be trivial for a new station/LAN to configure and join.
Using my model, end routers have two entries to support net-44.
LAN 44.24.10.x/24
Wide area 44.x.x.x/8
We could have pretty simple Linux or Router (like Mikrotik) setup scripts.
The BGP requirements for Net-44 require a formal agreement with an
ISP/Datacenter not just some engineer slipping the BGP in on the side.
If successful in building the net, we could end up with 10s of thousands of
entries in the munge text files.
I just think we can do better using modern methods.
I have an experimental dns running which can return services using SRV
records (right now digital voice linking).
host -t SRV _dextra._udp.arlink.net
host -t SRV _dplus._udp.arlink.net
host -t SRV _dcs._udp.arlink.net
I think the BGP router would largely reach out to LANs via easy to
establish and secure VPN protocols.
------------------------------
John D. Hays
K7VE
PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223
<http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>
<http://www.facebook.com/john.d.hays>
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Brian Rogers <n1uro(a)n1uro.ampr.org> wrote:
> (Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
> _______________________________________________
> Hello John et al;
>
> On Fri, 2013-09-06 at 09:58 -0700, K7VE - John spake:
> > This may be a stop gap for low traffic sites, but I think the goal is
> > to avoid sending everything through 44.0.0.1.
> >
> If tunnelled routing via RIP/munge is configured properly, not
> everything gets routed via 44.0.0.1. That's the idea behind such a route
> schema. Routes between 44-net gateways are then point-to-point bypassing
> the need to route traffic between them through 44.0.0.1.
>
> > Internet -> Router (BGP) -> subnet (i.e. 44.24.0.0/16) ->
> > VPN/Tunnel/RF Link -> Local Subnet 44.24.10.0/24 -> LAN (wired or RF)
> > -> Station (44.24.10.2/32)
> >
> In a perfect world perhaps, however we are NOT in a perfect world and
> with corporate policies at almost every ISP, I can't see this working.
> 100% of the ISPs I've worked for refused to allow my personal connect to
> be an exception of Source Address Filtering. The corporates don't want
> to be held liable for traffic that flows through their network on a
> direct tiedown to an edge point to/from a network that's not theirs. I
> can more than understand this.
>
> Also, there's the human factor involved here; what happens when the
> engineer is layed off/quits/ISP goes dark? Then what happens to that
> larger subnet when the human no longer is there to maintain it or the
> ISP goes under and the route is removed? Then it fails to work. All
> those gateways which were formerly supported via their local BGP table
> now have 0 connectivity to 44/8.
>
> > Any incoming traffic to the router based on BGP would be routed to the
> > subnet and filtered at the local Subnet or where the traffic hits Part
> > 97 (or equivalent) RF.
> >
> See above.
> >
> > Any outgoing (from individual /32 net) traffic is passed up the chain
> > LAN / Local Sub-net / Subnet / Internet.
> >
> Not necessarily true; explained below.
>
> > If the src address is 44.x.x.x/32 it should be routed through the BGP
> > enabled router to the Internet. If the src address is no 44.x.x.x/32
> > it goes over the local ISP router.
> >
> This may be the case where you are at, but in the northeast U.S. we
> route subnets based on RF connectivity first. It's always been our
> policy for years. We also use FlexNet, which is like BGP to ax25 - uses
> RF - and is very efficient. Because our regions are smaller in
> geographic size, from 44.88/16 I would route to 44.44/16, 44.64/16,
> 44.68/16, etc., all via RF (FlexNet), and I wouldn't even consider using
> a wired IP solution such as an ISP's link or ipip tunnel through my ISP.
> This too also helps keep <all> traffic from going through 44.0.0.1 while
> doing our part to keep 44-net an experimental RF network, not a
> glorified ISP.
>
> For more info on this;
> http://wetnet.net/pipermail/seatcp/2003-December/003602.html
>
>
> If engineers at ISPs never retire, are immortal, and their respective
> ISPs don't go dark and allow broadcasting pseudo ownership of a
> subnet(s) not registered to them while opening holes from their source
> address filtering, then I'd be in full favor of your proposed BGP
> solution. I'm also not saying the same argument can't be made for when
> BK retires from UCSD either... it could very well happen.
>
> --
> 73 de Brian Rogers - N1URO
> email: <n1uro(a)n1uro.ampr.org>
> Web: http://www.n1uro.net/
> Ampr1: http://n1uro.ampr.org/
> Ampr2: http://nos.n1uro.ampr.org
> Linux Amateur Radio Services
> axMail-Fax & URONode
> AmprNet coordinator for:
> Connecticut, Delaware, Maine,
> Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
> Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
> and Vermont.
>