29 Sep
2017
29 Sep
'17
9:15 p.m.
/Were the users region/area are is the subnet. Hopefully the ham at the other side //of
your VPN wants
to route to the end users of his (coverage) area so he needs //a local subnet if there is
none.
I routed the subnet for Thailand in the past for example to a couple of local gateways
there.
It is obvious that the local gateway in the Bangkok area needs a local subnet for his ham
users there so that he
can route over the radio to them and not a subnet from here or ip numbers from this area.
I only provided Internet ipip routing for them as a service as my commercial ip was
fixed.
Bob VE3TOK
/
On 2017-09-29 07:02 PM, Mike Vespoli wrote:
> Thanks for your reply. I haven't applied for route permissions yet. I
> wanted to know what subnet to advertise. I have a Denver subnet that I
> will start to deploy here in Denver Metro at some point in the near future.
> I plan on doing VPN gateways, servers and RF access points. That is
> waiting on some other tasks I need to finish here, although I should have
> full BGP routes up by the end of the year.
>
> My NJ facility is ready to go live on VPN Gateways and Server, the upstream
> IP provider has a work order ready to add the Full BGP route to theirs and
> my route table once the permission is granted. At that point I can spin up
> a bunch of VMs and VPN gateways.
>
>
> My main question is: Should I apply for a new subnet in the NJ /16 or does
> it really matter since that NJ facility will be basically serving the
> entire world? NJ will not be serving any RF connections, although it may
> do VPN tunnels...
>
> The other side of that is that can I temporarily route my denver /24 to my
> NJ DataCenter so I can start getting things built and tested? when Denver
> DC comes online it will be a part of my full routes.
>
> I am just trying to set this up correctly from the beginning. the geography
> of this in my situation makes things more difficult.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 3:58 PM, Brian Kantor <Brian(a)ucsd.edu> wrote:
>
>> Regional assignments are generally for where the end-user hosts will be.
>>
>> You specified tunnel routing for your subnet, so your route goes through
>> the UCSD tunnel IPIP router, but because you're located in Denver and
>> that's
>> where your end-users will be, Denver is the proper subnet and not the
>> subnet
>> for La Jolla.
>>
>> If you're planning to route your subnet directly to the Internet backbone
>> by advertising a route with BGP from a data center, that's an entirely
>> different matter and you need specific permission from the network owner
>> to do so, which according to the portal database, you do not currently
>> have.
>> - Brian
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 03:45:46PM -0600, Mike Vespoli wrote:
>>> I am in need some guidance. I have a number of ways I can use this and I
>>> dont want to set it up wrong from the beginning.
>>>
>>> I was assigned a subnet in Denver, Colorado where I am working with local
>>> groups to get on some tower sites, but I have a Data Center in New Jersey
>>> that has a large VM infrastructure. I live in Colorado but since the
>> data
>>> center is in New Jersey should I get another allocation? I still plan
>> to
>>> use the Denver/Colorado Springs subnet, but that upstream ISP is being
>>> difficult at the moment since I am a subtenant, and my MOU is only for
>>> tower space and a two routers in the cabinet there.
>>>
>>> I was going to just route the Colorado IPs to my New Jersey Data Center
>>> then tunnel back to the Colorado Gateway, but am not sure what the
>> policies
>>> on that are.
>>>
>>> My plans are to offer some free VMs and VPN tunnels to HAMS on my back
>> end
>>> systems as well as VPN gateway points, etc. Those would be in NJ, but
>> once
>>> I finish my migration into a dedicated cabinet here in Denver I would
>> offer
>>> additional VMs / Gateways here as well. Future plans include California
>> and
>>> Croatia.
>>>
>>> Please let me know if anyone has any ideas about what direction I should
>>> go. My provider in NJ is ready to add the routes next week (as soon as
>> the
>>> go ahead authorization from AMPR).
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Mike Vespoli
>>> Denver Colorado
>>> KE0HFH
>>>