On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:14 AM, YT9TP op. Pedja yt9tp@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