19 Nov
2014
19 Nov
'14
3:23 a.m.
Subject:
Re: [44net] amprgw ok?
From:
"Marius Petrescu" <marius(a)yo2loj.ro>
Date:
11/18/2014 06:05 PM
To:
"'AMPRNet working group'" <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu>
Brian, Chris, thank you for your efforts.
I took a look at the latest sent encap info and I want to bring in
discussion the way how some gateways are announced.
Ok, with the exception that my systems cannot route to there, because the gateway is
within network-44. Discussed before. Hopefully will change after we are on BGP
ourselves,
on a connection that does not do source address filtering.
But we won't be using a gateway within network-44 unless absolutely required, I still
think
it is something to be avoided because quite a lot of gateways will not be able to route
there,
and the reason of "reliability" that was given for this setup in fact results in
permanent failure.
>route addprivate 44.24.240/20 encap
44.24.221.1
Now this one is ok. The gateway (44.24.221.1) is BGP announced, but not
in
the encap file. Everything ok and working.
Now to the other two IMHO are wrong:
This one appears and disappears. Sometimes it is in my list, sometimes not. It
could be that he does not understand how to setup his system, and is not able to
read English very well. Maybe a French or otherwise Francophone person can try
to contact him and ask what is going on.
>route addprivate 44.151.94.28/32 encap
44.151.94.28
So this host expects to get encapsulated traffic to a gateway which is
the
host itself. This leeds to a routing loop and is not possible with a regular
setup.
This encap entry is in fact plain and simple useless: It states 'you can
reach me via me' which gives not much information. >route addprivate 44.140/16 encap 44.140.0.1
The same applies to the above, just that the whole subnet is routed to a
gateway which is part of that subnet itself.