21 Apr
2018
21 Apr
'18
4:29 p.m.
If all you're running are Echolink proxies and relays, sure, I get your
argument, the issue of NAT at the source isn't a big deal and simply
routing 44.190.0.0/16 via the NAT router at each end user is a good
solution, but for those of us who WANT to do something more than merely run
proxies on those addresses, I'd like to be able to get my routing right, so
NAT doesn't bite me in the bum when I attempt to set something else up.
On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 11:57 PM, Kenneth Finnegan <
kennethfinnegan2007(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 4:51 AM, Tony Langdon <vk3jed(a)vkradio.com> wrote:
> >
> > The problem I have with this is when traffic is routed via the regular
> > ISP, the source address is no longer 44.x, it's the public IP of the NAT
> > router.
>
>
> Why should I as an Echolink relay operator be expected to go through the
> additional effort of configuring IPIP just so you can enjoy the novelty of
> both ends of the connection having 44/8 addresses? Your IPIP encapsulated
> packet will still have your ISP's address and will take the same path
> regardless. I understood that one of the motivations of the 44.190/16
> prefix was to allow end users to easily configure their routing policy
> correctly to avoid tunneling to UCSD first (which isn't the end of the
> world since Javier and I are setting up our relays also in California).
>
> --
> Kenneth Finnegan
> http://blog.thelifeofkenneth.com/
>