6 Feb
2021
6 Feb
'21
4:25 p.m.
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.
--
73 de Tony VK3JED/VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com