29 Jan
2014
29 Jan
'14
6:15 p.m.
John would like to talk with you as I would be interested to know if mikrotik can be used
instead of the rip44d.
Thanks
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 29, 2014, at 3:20 PM, K7VE - John <k7ve(a)k7ve.org> wrote:
>
> (Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
> _______________________________________________
> That is basically what I have in mind. Though I would allow the regionals
> to determine the VPN protocols to reach the subnets (more than one,
> including possibly IPIP).
>
> Then we should have plug and play configurations for subnets. For example,
> I can provision a MikroTik with a VPN to a datacenter and deliver it to
> subnet admin for $50-100, who places on their LAN with connectivity to an
> ISP. Going out from there to RF or a service is the responsibility of the
> local subnet.
>
>
> ------------------------------
> John D. Hays
> K7VE
> PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223
> <http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>
> <http://www.facebook.com/john.d.hays>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Bryan Fields <Bryan(a)bryanfields.net>wrote;wrote:
>
>> (Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
>> _______________________________________________
>>> On 1/29/14 2:05 PM, Steve Wright wrote:
>>> This mesh crap really needs to be binned, or at the very least not try
>> and
>>> do anything important over it, such as route an entire /16. If you want
>> to
>>> connect a /24 with it to make a neat local play toy then go for it, but
>>> using it as an enterprise routing tool is absurd at the very least, and
>> at
>>> it's WORST, it's very likely to just completely stop anyone from
trying
>> to
>>> build anything new over it because it's connectivity and throughput
>> sucks.
>>
>> This.
>>
>> So this is how I'd see it work, I need to write up a proposal for it.
>>
>> You have regional BGP routers that route subnets to the internet. These
>> could
>> then tunnel the subnets to end users via GRE. End users could route via an
>> IGP over this tunnel to the regional speaker(s). Multiple tunnels would
>> give
>> redundancy.
>>
>> The regional speakers would have a tunnel between them.
>>
>> In the event of an outage the other BGP speakers would route subnets.
>> Multiple links from end users to other BGP speakers (or non-speakers that
>> are
>> aggravation routers) would provide redundancy to the end users.
>>
>> Of course nothing prevents having a direct BGP speaker with an RF link to
>> end
>> users, most data centers will not have roof rights however.
>>
>> We could setup redistribution that would pull announcements from BGP if end
>> nodes went down.
>>
>> Each BGP speaker could announce the subnets it knows about and a /8
>> providing
>> we have a mesh of the backbone bgp speakers.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> --
>> Bryan Fields
>>
>> 727-409-1194 - Voice
>> 727-214-2508 - Fax
>> http://bryanfields.net
>> _________________________________________
>> 44Net mailing list
>> 44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
>> http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
>