19 Jun
2015
19 Jun
'15
1 a.m.
Ok. I will not go on wit this.
Just one last comment un that "complexity"...
I need to send replies to external originated traffic to the same network
interface they came in.
And those come via ampr-gw, no matter the setup.
So even if I use NAT for outgoing connections, in case of an connection
request from the internet which arrives via ampr-gw, I still need to reply
to it via ampr-gw.
This can be acomplished by using connection and routing marks or rules.
I use the routing mark approach in an router at the moment, but until a few
weeks ago, I used policy routing (rules).
And I accomplish to unload the gateway as much as possible, and depend
minimal on it.
Of course feel free to do it as you wish.
-----Original Message-----
From: 44net-bounces+marius=yo2loj.ro(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
[mailto:44net-bounces+marius=yo2loj.ro@hamradio.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Cory
(NQ1E)
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 23:58
To: AMPRNet working group
Subject: Re: [44net] (no subject)
And for your access from the internet you need a way
to get 'from
Assigned44LAN to ! 44.0.0.0/8' via the ampr-gw tunnel.
One solution would be the one described 2 days earlier, a second custom
routing table (for which I use the 'default' table).
Another possibility would be to drop the usage of table 44 and put all
routes to table 'main'.
Then the rules are not needed for 44/44 traffic.
Only the part relating to the reply to incoming non-44 connections via
ampr-gw, which need 2 rules to work.
Wait... I thought you were using NAT/PAT/Masquerade for your [Assigned44LAN
-> InternetHosts] traffic??? Why would you then talk about sending those
packets to ampr-gw? What exactly are you trying to accomplish with all
this added complexity?