Re: [44net] Tunnel mesh is (mostly) down

True. But the point is, people have been proposing a system of local BGP hubs as a solution to the problem of a single point of failure. But it's not a solution. It just moves the problem. Also, people bemoan the "proprietary" nature of what we're doing. But if you think about most large commercial enterprises, they have their own private VPN routes they're not dependent on anyone else for that either. The modern catch-phrase, particularly in the LAN, is SDN (software defined networking). Sure, it's wrapped in sophisticated GUIs and such, but in reality, it's not all that different. In fact, on some levels, "SDN" is not all that different than the old IBM SNA VTAM gens! The key is this: Right now, when my packets leave my site, I don't have to worry about them routing through some intermediate site belonging to a ham who probably doesn't monitor 24x7 and who might be at work, sick, on vacation, watching the Superbowl, busy with "honey-do's", or just not feeling like working on the "hobby" at the moment. If there's a way to use standard protocols to make what we have more dynamic without introducing single points of failure, then that would definitely be the way to go. But we shouldn't weaken what is currently very stable (if you don't rely on a single point of failure). Aside: For the RIP function, perhaps there's a way to introduce a method for RIP to detect incomplete updates. For example, perhaps the program could be augmented to allow the user to define a list of important routes that can't be deleted and, if missing from the update, would mean there's something wrong with the update. Just a random thought. Michael