Agreed,
there will be places where tunnels are needed however as well as a time of transition. For that use having a tunnel protocol that is widely used across a number of independent platforms is useful. Really we are talking about 2 seperate things though... one being the network core, the second being connections into the core. for the second some kind of tunnels will likely be with us for the forseeable future (until you or someone with much more money than I can build dedicated circuits between all the disjoint lans (isLANdS) of 44 net. Something like GRE or openvpn could help in that as a compliment to IPIP, but yes in the core, tunnels should disappear, at the edge, we may still need them for the forseeable future.
Eric AF6EP
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Ralph ralphlists@bsrg.org wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ We don't want a tunnel. We want them sent through our Tier 1 upstream provider to our ISP, which I own and provide service to other Hams on. That is why we contacted you in the first place Brian.
44 Net is not just for tunneling Use the allocation or lose it, just like 220 (tm)
-----Original Message-----
the mention of using openvpn was mostly intended as a nudge. While IPIP seems to be the defacto standard for amprnet tunneling, it's about the only place I've seen it used much. The tools for tunnels/vpn links are out there but something such as openvpn is much more widely supported than ipip....
As a historical note, we used IPIP tunnels because that's all there was when we got started. This was early; we were using tunnels even before a protocol ID byte value had been assigned to IPIP. VPNs hadn't been invented yet.
Indeed, we've discussed using openvpn before and the response was generally favorable. It would be a great step forward for the tunneled parts of the network. - Brian te: 06/07/12
44Net mailing list 44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net