Hi Gerrit,
I’m saying to send ALL internet traffic through the network, but certainly all internet bgp connected 44 networks and the ipip mesh. If I am correct in understanding, you are already sending all IPIP traffic to the pop, so why not all other 44 routes that are not in the IPIP mes(s)h?
That is how a pop should function. It acts as the gateway between ham networks that are not directly connected. That is what was asked from the TAC to investigate, design, put up to discussion, get approval and implement..
Ruben - ON3RVH
On 30 Jul 2021, at 19:13, Gerrit, DH8GHH via 44Net 44net@mailman.ampr.org wrote:
Hi Ruben,
sending all internet related traffic via the HamNet is no solution:
HamNet is not broadband DSL. There are users that have only 1 MBits uplinks to the HamNet. NPR-Users have less than 200 kBits available. In addition, we don't even know how good/fast the packets are forwarded in the HamNet.
The decision whether a data packet is to the HamNet or to the internet must be made in the users router at home. If a service is located in the internet, we want the data go through the DSL line.
I re-iterate my question: What are the correct route settings so that data packets destined for 44 internet services take their way via the DSL connection and data packets for HamNet go to my antenna?
73 de Gerrit, DH8GHH
Am 30.07.2021 17:09, schrieb Ruben ON3RVH:
Gerrit, I re-iterate myself, but what you should tell them, and then actually do it, is point 44/9 and 44.128/10 towards their radio and fix hamnet. Users should only have to point the two routes 44/9 and 44.128/10 towards their radio. THAT IS IT. The Hamnet BGP enabled backbone and the pop DB0FHN should take care of the rest. **It is as simple as that.** Supposedly, from the docs linked in the proposal, DB0FHN has the connectivity to the current IPIP mesh. So what is the problem then? Maybe the rest of the 44 network that is internet only connected? Well that shouldn't have to be an issue either. Route the rest of the 44 network that is not known in the IPIP mesh (the larger /9 & /10, as more specifics will be routed to the IPIP mess peer) towards it's transit provider and you're done. I just don't get why hamnet is making such a big deal of what should be a very simple networking task.. 73 Ruben ON3RVH -----Original Message----- From: 44Net 44net-bounces+on3rvh=on3rvh.be@mailman.ampr.org On Behalf Of Gerrit Herzig DH8GHH via 44Net Sent: Friday, July 30, 2021 16:31 To: 44Net general discussion 44net@mailman.ampr.org Cc: Gerrit Herzig DH8GHH dh8ghh@darc.de Subject: Re: [44net] A new era of IPv4 Allocations Hello Charlie, As stated earlier, I am a region coordinator for the HamNet in Germany.
Let the users, who are technologists after all, work out how to route traffic based on their own needs.
I have a lot of users who are using the HamNet via RF access, but they are no network technologists. They keep asking me, which route they have to set in their FritzBox to be able to reach HamNet destinations as well as internet-only destinations of the 44 net. What shall I tell them? The answer to this question is the proposed band plan. I do not understand why this is considered as a bad idea. What are you loosing by accepting this proposal? Nothing except the time needed for the necessary changes. I know the effort, we have been affected by the sale... As stated earlier, I - and most of the european HamNet users - route 44/8 via RF at the moment, which is obviously not a good idea. So please accept the proposal or provide a better solution that does not require to become an "network technologist". Renumbering to RFC1918 & RFC6598 is not a solution as Antonios already wrote in several emails. 73 de Gerrit, DH8GHH -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Charlie Smurthwaite via 44Net Sent: Friday, July 30, 2021 2:29 PM To: Mario Lorenz via 44Net Cc: Charlie Smurthwaite Subject: Re: [44net] A new era of IPv4 Allocations Apologies for more email, but I would just like to throw in my own (very simple) personal opinion on this topic. I strongly believe that the correct solution is to divide up the IP address space geographically (ie by country), and then simply give out allocations, regardless of purpose, as is the case already both with 44net and the rest of the IP address space. This gives people the flexibility to use the IP addresses in whatever way they see fit, whether that be a well known radio protocol, an experimental radio protocol, a tunnel, an experimental wired protocol, or just Amateur radio related services on the public Internet. Let the users, who are technologists after all, work out how to route traffic based on their own needs. Any attempt to artificially carve up the address space by purpose will only further confuse matters. There isn't a single unified 44 network, and not everyone who runs by RF necessarily wants to be connected to or disconnected from any other network, including the Internet. Charlie _________________________________________ 44Net mailing list 44Net@mailman.ampr.org https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net _________________________________________ 44Net mailing list 44Net@mailman.ampr.org https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
44Net mailing list 44Net@mailman.ampr.org https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net