Heloo all,
The issue is actually simple one:
If you have a 44net subnet behind your router, machines that do not have
DNS entries at
ampr.org will not be able to reach BGPed networks,
because amprgw requires any host passing traffic through it must have
such a DNS entry.
At the moment, simply removing the default route in your ampr table
solves this and routes those hosts vis ISP NAT.
By automatically creating individual routes for BGP subnets make this a
little more diffcult, and breaks existing working setups. Even if this
is not a big issue for people with good networking knowledge, it breaks
things for those that should have expected a simpler setup and are not
profficient in networking, contrary to the initial goal of the proposal.
73s de Marius, YO2LOJ
On 12.03.2019 12:11, Brian Kantor wrote:
I would like Steve and Marius to describe their
findings,
as I believe my understanding is as yet incomplete.
- Brian
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 10:53:25AM +0100, Toussaint OTTAVI wrote:
Hi,
Le 11/03/2019 à 11:02, Brian Kantor a écrit :
Steve, VK5ASF, has very correctly pointed out a
case where this
proposed change would cause problems.
Please, just for our knowledge and
understanding in all possible
situations, could you tell us more about the problems the change would
have caused ?
73 de TK1BI
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net