Re: [44net] amprnet routing made simple

Hello John et al; On Fri, 2013-09-06 at 09:58 -0700, K7VE - John spake: 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. 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. See above. Not necessarily true; explained below. 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: &lt;n1uro(a)n1uro.ampr.org&gt; 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.