26 Jul
2013
26 Jul
'13
4:05 a.m.
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:14 AM, YT9TP op. Pedja <yt9tp(a)uzice.net> wrote:
Thing is, I want to use Mikrotik router that I already
have in use, and
which handles my network. I do not need another box just to play gateway.
I do not understand why standard dynamic routing protocol is not used in
first place, so we would not have this issue at all as all routers are
capable of dynamic routing?!?!
It's true that most routers support common dynamic routing protocols,
but the downside is that most of those those standard protocols (BGP,
OSPF, RIP...) only support passing routing information between routers
which are already directly connected *before* the protocol starts
doing its magic (i.e. have some sort of link of them - wire, wireless,
or a tunnel / VPN).
What we need is a way to set up tunnels, and "normal" dynamic routing
protocols simply don't do that. The rip44 thing we currently do to
automatically transmit tunnel routes uses the RIP packet format, but
the action taken by rip44d on Linux is quite different from what any
standard RIP protocol implementation would do - it sets up tunnel
destinations instead of simple routing changes to locally connected
routers.
These days some standard protocols exist to set up dynamic multi-point
tunnel/VPN networks, such as Cisco's DMVPN
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_Multipoint_Virtual_Private_Network
- apparently also supported by opennhrp on Linux). Might be fun to
play with those. The "interesting" part would be trying to make such a
setup co-exist and interconnected with the old amprnet subnets in an
effective way (i.e. not traversing via UCSD every time).
Why then such scripts are not run at portal.ampr.org
so we can, besides
encap file, download prepared files for popular routers, so we do not need
to make conversions for ourselves?
That's not a bad idea.
- Hessu