Mike, you should take that as an option, not as a "must".
Otherwise why would it make sense to BGP announce a subnet on the global internet, if using the ampr gateway would be mandatory? In such a case, the tunnel mesh would do just fine.
Let's take an example: Me, at 44.182.21.1 want to reach 44.182.10.1 which is BGP announced.
Using my own public IP this would be:
44.182.21.1->(nat)89.33.44.100->[about 5 hops]->44.182.10.1 (src 89.33.44.100, RTT 4 msec, some 300km apart).
Using the ampr-gw this becomes:
44.182.21.1->[tunneling, about 15 hops]->ampr-gw-> [abt. 15 hops]->44.182.10.1 (src 44.182.21.1, RTT 450 msec, crossing the ocean twice).
The idea is to connect directly via your internet provider, so that you get there more efficient and offload the forwarding through ampr-gw.
The only draw-back is that you would reach the destination with your public IP as source instead of your 44 address.

Marius, YO2LOJ

Thank you Bob and Lynwood

I’m running ampr-ripd 2.4-1 on a Raspberry Pi (Raspbian 11).

I understand the suggestion to just route traffic to these systems via the internet, but that feels like it contradicts how the FAQ describes AmprGW’s features:

"It forwards traffic between Internet hosts (including those AMPRNet that are directly connected to the Internet [BGP-routed]) and IPIP tunneled AMPRNet hosts” (https://wiki.ampr.org/wiki/FAQ).

I’m aware that connections between IPIP hosts and the general Internet need to be authorized (by having an DNS A record) does that restriction also apply to BGP-routed parts of 44net?

Mike 2M0MQN

_______________________________________________
44net mailing list -- 44net@mailman.ampr.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 44net-leave@mailman.ampr.org