As per the 44.137.0.1 and subnets:
Report is that the 44.137.0.1 GW is promptly pingable, but regarding their subnet only the following are *correctly* pingable, namely:
44.137.24.5 44.137.40.1 44.137.40.10 44.137.40.2 44.137.40.20
all the other not.
Those addresses are not on the 44.137.0.1 gateway but on two different private gateway systems that advertise only those addresses.
I hope everyone correctly implements a "most specific route first" policy that means that traffic to such addresses goes to the indicated tunnel endpoint (89.18.172.155 and 89.18.172.156) while other addresses in the 44.137.0.0/16 network are routed to tunnel endpoint 213.222.29.194. That should be no problem on e.g. a Linux system.
The following is the routing situation seen from here; the 44.137 IPIP routes result correctly addressed toward the commercial GW IP addresses according to the above statements. The routes are collected from the gw.ampr.org and so only that setup there. Now, as per my understanding, all the whole 44.137 GWs should be setup on the same way of that (above) pingable GWs to be reached via tunl0.
root@ir0rm-7:/# route -n|grep 44.137 44.137.2.138 84.106.127.22 255.255.255.255 UGH 0 0 0 tunl0 44.137.24.1 88.159.160.228 255.255.255.255 UGH 0 0 0 tunl0 44.137.24.5 89.18.172.156 255.255.255.255 UGH 0 0 0 tunl0 44.137.25.62 88.159.83.58 255.255.255.255 UGH 0 0 0 tunl0 44.137.32.50 84.83.147.249 255.255.255.255 UGH 0 0 0 tunl0 44.137.0.49 77.175.246.216 255.255.255.255 UGH 0 0 0 tunl0 44.137.40.2 89.18.172.156 255.255.255.255 UGH 0 0 0 tunl0 44.137.40.1 89.18.172.156 255.255.255.255 UGH 0 0 0 tunl0 44.137.40.10 89.18.172.155 255.255.255.255 UGH 0 0 0 tunl0 44.137.40.20 89.18.172.155 255.255.255.255 UGH 0 0 0 tunl0 44.137.1.160 46.21.164.170 255.255.255.240 UG 0 0 0 tunl0 44.137.1.208 195.240.133.194 255.255.255.240 UG 0 0 0 tunl0 44.137.33.16 84.83.147.249 255.255.255.240 UG 0 0 0 tunl0 44.137.33.32 62.45.244.128 255.255.255.240 UG 0 0 0 tunl0 44.137.51.64 130.255.72.61 255.255.255.240 UG 0 0 0 tunl0 44.137.37.160 82.161.55.187 255.255.255.240 UG 0 0 0 tunl0 44.137.37.176 82.139.110.195 255.255.255.240 UG 0 0 0 tunl0 44.137.37.192 31.151.69.80 255.255.255.240 UG 0 0 0 tunl0 44.137.41.128 83.160.55.17 255.255.255.240 UG 0 0 0 tunl0 44.137.27.112 88.159.160.228 255.255.255.240 UG 0 0 0 tunl0 44.137.31.32 82.176.45.37 255.255.255.240 UG 0 0 0 tunl0 44.137.0.0 213.222.29.194 255.255.0.0 UG 0 0 0 tunl0
For example, 44.137.41.97 should be pingable via that endpoint. When doing a traceroute, you should see a couple more hops after the tunnel that are radio hops.
That IP address doesn't appear on the above list but it is positively pingable:
root@ir0rm-7:/# ping 44.137.41.97 -c 4 PING 44.137.41.97 (44.137.41.97) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 44.137.41.97: icmp_req=1 ttl=61 time=93.1 ms 64 bytes from 44.137.41.97: icmp_req=2 ttl=61 time=87.6 ms 64 bytes from 44.137.41.97: icmp_req=3 ttl=61 time=86.8 ms 64 bytes from 44.137.41.97: icmp_req=4 ttl=61 time=97.4 ms
--- 44.137.41.97 ping statistics --- 4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3004ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 86.863/91.271/97.413/4.307 ms
... and its traceroute is:
root@ir0rm-7:/# traceroute 44.137.41.97 traceroute to 44.137.41.97 (44.137.41.97), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 * * * 2 * * * 3 * * * 4 * * * 5 * * * 6 * * * 7 * * * 8 * * * 9 * * * 10 * * * 11 * * * 12 linux.pe1chl.ampr.org (44.137.41.97) 101.326 ms 104.222 ms 104.455 ms
The hamwan.org remain unreachable
That one is reachable for me:
It goes via radio to our 44.137.0.0/16 gateway and from there over plain internet (it is BGP routed). You may have trouble trying to access this with some of the typical tunnel setups because they provide no tunnel endpoint.
Yes, it is clear now, TNX.
gus