31 Dec
2020
31 Dec
'20
2:55 a.m.
On 31/12/20 7:14 am, Marius Petrescu via 44Net wrote:
I think we discuss about 2 different sides of our
network coin.
On one hand we have the end users, which may have very little
networking or IT knowledge, and on the other the potential POP sysops.
While on the POP side the implementation and maintainance of the
system is done by knowledgeable persons, and so may actually implement
whatever interconnection protocols we like (including the existing
full mesh IPIP wich is quite fit for the current task except
encryption), the user part should be kept as simple and OS agnostic as
possible.
And then there's people like me. I'm more than the typical user
- I run
a rather complex network here, with multiple subnets on the one wire,
and even have to policy route at a few points to keep it all going. But
I don't (currently) have the WAN knowledge and experience to run a POP
that might have to participate using BGP, etc (I've never been hands on
with BGP, for example - I just know it exists and have an idea what it
does).
I am also likely to need a bunch of addresses, so where do I fit in the
grand scheme of things?
That is why I push with the usage of well known protocols on the user
side, so that the end user can use basically cheap home routers or
even single computers/tablets/phones to achieve 44net connectivity .
Yeah, need to
keep things straightforward for the majority of end users.
What happens between POPs is another story, and the sky is the limit.
But a first practical approach is to keep existing IPIP ful mesh
between POPs which needs a minimal effort, while moving regular
clients to another VPN star topology to increase the accessibility of
the network.
I see the topology looking more like a coronavirus, where the core of
the network is a "ball" of connectivity, with the end users being on the
end of the spikes. :) But within that body, there's redundancy and
optimisation of routes.
--
73 de Tony VK3JED/VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com