23 May
2022
23 May
'22
2:50 a.m.
A big advantage of POPs over the current IPIP mesh is that you do not need to have
everyone
use the same tunneling protocol. POPs can offer multiple tunneling protocols and can
experiment
with new ones, without impact on all the other users of the network.
So there is no need to have a broad discussion about "do we use OpenVPN OR
wireguard", we can
offer both of them, and when a new protocol comes around next year we can just add it,
first
to one or a couple of POPs to try and test it, and then to all of them.
With the IPIP mesh we are stuck with using the same protocol everywhere, and when some
user
cannot use it due to limitations of their internet connection, they simply cannot join.
Also, having POPs as an intermediate makes the network scale much better, as each user
only
has a tunnel to one or a couple of POPs, instead of having a full mesh to everyone else.
The number of POPs can increase with demand and they can be located where demand is
highest.
Rob
On 5/22/22 20:43, David Andrzejewski via 44net wrote:
I might suggest WireGuard instead of OpenVPN. I know
it's newer but it's also a bit easier to use and set up.
That said, I fully agree with your point about the learning aspect of routing. I think
there's a balance to be struck - ham radio is about learning, but there shouldn't
be a high barrier to entry.
Dave/ad8g
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve L via 44net <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2022 14:25
To: Rosy Schechter - KJ7RYV <rosy(a)ardc.net>
Cc: Amprnet 44 Net <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org>
Subject: [44net] Re: 44Net Assessment Kickoff - Survey!
Good survey
I just completed it and I have some other comments.
The IPIP mesh is not plug and play, which for folks like me who are interested in
learning routing has been an invaluable learning exercise. I hope something like this can
always continue.
However there are other use cases that are more plug and play. One being supporting
internet connected infrastructure (ie. IRLP, Allstar, DMR, D-Star etc). All of which
mostly require a public IPV4 address and the ability to port forward. Such is not the
case with cellular providers and will only become more of an issue as the global pool
IPv4 addresses shrinks. A system of geographic POP’s should be deployed. The POP’s
might want to use OpenVPN as it's well supported and issues automated keys or the ARRL
LoTW method. It would be wise to limit the bandwidth to something modest and employ a DPI
technique to drop bittorrent fingerprints to ease overall administration.
Short of ARDC supporting POP’s, then you’re looking at outside groups making this happen.
But these will likely be service specific. Ex, I believe IRLP has done so with some
assigned address space.
Current geographic portal allocations are based on CIDR style routing.
Which makes sense if you intend to interact with existing (legacy) RF networks. Perhaps a
portal question should exist to point them to their geographic allocation or not. If the
intent is non RF or mesh, then a different allocation methodology should be employed (next
chunk in sequence)
I’ll stress again knowing who is doing what is always good so one can privately
coordinate forwarding partners, etc, and just folks to experiment with.
Steve, KB9MWR
_______________________________________________
44net mailing list -- 44net(a)mailman.ampr.org To unsubscribe send an email to
44net-leave(a)mailman.ampr.org
_______________________________________________
44net mailing list -- 44net(a)mailman.ampr.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 44net-leave(a)mailman.ampr.org