I do agree that we do not need one big hub, maintaining the central - or several bgp
backbone links should be handled by ppl who know what their doing, that's a given.
But setting up Marius' script on Mikrotik is easy as pie and it configures the rest
"automagically" whereas configuring BGP on a tik, although easy for those of us
that do such things daily, is not that easy for non network-technical folks
Even installing and configuring quagga on linux and editing the configuration file is not
that easy for those who don't know a thing about networking.
It could mean a lot of work for us maintainers to help all the non network technical folks
to configure (and maintain) their routers. I for one am not shy of the work, nor do I mind
helping them, but everyone should be aware that it could fall onto them to set it up for
those that don't know how. (or can't/won't read a wiki article)
73,
Ruben - ON3RVH
-----Original Message-----
From: 44Net <44net-bounces+on3rvh=on3rvh.be(a)mailman.ampr.org> On Behalf Of
marius(a)yo2loj.ro
Sent: vrijdag 19 juli 2019 12:12
To: AMPRNet working group <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org>
Subject: Re: [44net] Time to restructure the network?
Setting up some kind of vpn tunnel and running BGP over it is much easier then setting up
a full mesh ipip network.
Nobody asks anybody to be a big network hub.
On linux, basically it comes down to configure a virtual network interface of some kind
and add 4 lines to the quagga configuration file.
On routers, its not a bigger endeavour either.
We have all the 32bit ASs available, and a rational assignement and usage is already in
place in the DE hamnet and workig for years (42+itu_prefix+...).
And after such a reorganization, even switching to another prefix, e.g. private
addressing, would be a walk in the park.
Btw, this would be a nice first project to use some of that money...
Marius, YO2LOJ
July 19, 2019 10:50 AM, "Ruben ON3RVH" <on3rvh(a)on3rvh.be> wrote:
First thought would be that BGP is too difficult for
90% of the HAM operators.
Although I do applaud the idea and do think it would be a better
setup, 90% of the operators don't know anything about routing, let alone dynamic
routing protocols.
The ease of the IPIP tunnels using a modified RIP daemon that can
easily be downloaded makes the current setup so easy to deploy and get online.
Also seeing that a lot of questions coming in are from users
complaining that they are not reachable to/from the internet (when
they haven't set up reverse DNS) shows that even reading the wiki is too hard for
some of them.
73,
Ruben - ON3RVH
-----Original Message-----
From: 44Net <44net-bounces+on3rvh=on3rvh.be(a)mailman.ampr.org> On
Behalf Of Rob Janssen
Sent: vrijdag 19 juli 2019 11:43
To: 44net(a)mailman.ampr.org
Subject: [44net] Time to restructure the network?
Now that we are all going to have to dive into our router
configurations, wouldn't it be a good time to make some changes that are long
overdue?
Like getting rid of the IPIP mesh and replace it with something more
modern and supported by off-the-shelf routers, works behind NAT, etc?
I would say setup some routers with VPN of different types around the
world, have everyone connect to there using a suitable VPN protocol, run BGP on it to
announce the gateway subnets.
A $50 MikroTik can do those jobs, for those that still want to run a
JNOS system on MS-DOS they can put one in front of their box and still
use it. People are already using it for IPIP mesh, a change in
topology would be only a config change for them. And other routers mentioned here can do
it too, without having to get external programs installed on them.
Those that want direct connection without a centralized system in the
path can simply setup a VPN connection between them and configure the BGP peers, it will
automatically work.
There is no need to use only a single protocol in such a network, only
the peers have to agree, so you can select from anything like
L2TP/IPsec, OpenVPN, Wireguard, just plain GRE or even IPIP, etc etc.
Just at this time I am trying to move my colocated machine that runs as an IPIP mesh
member and I face that stupid "protocol 4 is not passed by the firewall"
problem again. Arghh!!
Also we could get that IPv6 idea going. Remember it has been discussed many times and
the only
things we still need is some agreement on how to register and
distribute the "list of AMPRnet prefixes in IPv6 space". Again that
could be done using BGP, no need to setup yet another registration portal with
downloadable files.
Note that Daniel EA4GPZ put some ideas around IPv6 on his site:
https://destevez.net/ipv6-for-amateur-radio
Rob
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net