Re: [44net] "Sub-routing" from BGP Subnet

Hi, I also have a /24 announced via BGP which I have then allocated sub-allocations to end sites. My coordinator upgraded my portal account to be able to create sub-allocations within my subnet so I could do what you seem to be asking about, however it didn't end up being as useful as I expected. I am using the ability for testing things, however the "production" stuff is not registered on the portal and just goes to my /24. As an example, I have routed a /29 to a server that is used as a VPN endpoint to give static IPs to a few devices. As I am advertising the space over BGP, I need to have a tunnelled route available from the router advertising the /24 to forward to the /29. It is likely that outbound traffic will also need to go through this path for Internet access. The router already has AMPRNet connectivity for the /24, so the /29 automatically "inherits it". The only advantage I can see to configuring the /29 on the portal as well is for direct traffic to other 44/8 networks. I came to the conclusion that the "inefficiency" of sending this traffic through my main router is a lot less hassle than maintaining RIP44 daemons at every tunnel endpoint and registering everything on the portal. I am effectively using the routers advertising the /24 as VPN gateways for the rest of the subnet. The latency issue KF5JXV is having appears to be because he's located in the middle of nowhere in Internet routing terms. I am in the UK so my traffic goes via London anyway, making a detour via a London VPS not noticeable. You appear to be in CA and have the prefix advertised from LA, so your additional latency should be as imperceivable as mine. While the obvious option might be an OpenVPN server or something, as you're already using Vultr I can't help but mention the educational value in setting up stateless services that can be anycasted from multiple locations*. :) Thanks, Mike, M6XCV *You don't just need to worry about configuration, but also how the rest of the Internet chooses its "shortest" route! On 1 May 2017 at 18:18, Phil Pacier <ad6nh(a)aprs2.net> wrote: