On 7/2/21 1:47 am, Marius Petrescu via 44Net wrote:
Actually, the idea would be to DELEGATE the user access to some point of presence which support optimized access to the full mesh/network (by whatever means, this is not important right now) and allow traditional VPN access to client that request it and do not have the means to participate in the grand scheme.
I like the sound of this, it includes those users who "just want to get connected", while allowing those of us who want to participate in the peer connected (IPIP, BGP, whatever we choose) down the track network.
And this does not even need to be centrally coordonated except the delegation itself (like that system X gets subnet Y, that's it).
I'd have thought users would get a subnet from their POP, which is delegated a larger subnet, much like the current system, except that the delegations are built into the routing PoP. allocations.
POPs could be supporting the current mesh for now, be BGP announce, whatever is needed to get them fully connected. The idea would be to provide end user access by means of non-custom protocols (again, no specifics, each POP should take their own decisions) without the need to set up an individual gateway, nor the need to get through amprgw.
Works for me. I'd be interested in being a part of the core network (i.e. on the mesh, or learning BGP and participating, whatever it takes. Could be a good learning exercise. I see the core network would ideally settle on a means of routing in the long term, to optimise routing there. But that's only for those participating in the core network. PoPs can use whatever they like - OpenVPN, Wireguard, etc, to connect to their users, as those decisions won't affect routing or performance, beyond the PoP.
Of course, everything degenerated in ideas of having everyone to use a one-fits-all solution, with everyone pushing their own agenda and impose it upon others...
Sorry to say, but I feel this will be just another failure, like anything else where some impose their specific solutions on others without working out a generic paradigm first.
I see 3 generic classes of system here:
Core network node. These nodes are part of the core network. They may or may not provide routing services for network traffic. These nodes would ideally run a selected means of routing and connectivity. Currently, the most common means at this level is the IPIP mesh, but that could be subject to review. While I've used the name "core network node", interested end users with a static IP and the ability to participate at this level would be welcome, and would be effectivey part of the "core network", even if not doing any more routing than for their own personal needs.
PoP - This is a core network node that also provides means for non core end users to connect via whatever protocols they want to support.
End user (non core) - these are users who simply want connectivity, but not participate in the more technical aspects of the network. Only requirement is they need to support one of the VPN/connectivity protocols that their local PoP supports.