6 Mar
2012
6 Mar
'12
4:19 p.m.
Great start on the details.
BTW... I wouldn't nail down the hardware to a specific make/model too much. I run a
1+ Gig community network on a pair of OpenBSD routers (in failover via VRRP/HSRP/CARP). I
run trunks to it and break it out on common managed switches (ie cisco 2960G). The boxes
themselves are two Rackable servers with the hard drives replaced with SSDs.
I think the requirements for the border router could include:
Must:
* Can support at least one full route table.
* Supports 200% of expected bandwidth needs.
Ie. Up and Downstream feeds, PPS, etc.
* Be supported by conditioned and emergency power
* HVAC is also on emergency power
* Physically secure and accessible by the regional coordinator and "Amateur Radio
Digital Communications" authorized representatives only.
* (More?)
Should:
* router(s) are multi-homed
* routers have fail-over (hot-spare)
Couldl:
* Enough memory to support large NAT tables (if needed)
* MPLS
* VLANs,
* (More?)
You may have two routers speaking BGP and core and access routers downstream of this. It
may all be L3 or it could be L2. Up to the needs of the installation (ie downstream
links) and the needs of the community.
Tim
On Mar 6, 2012, at 1:56 PM, K7VE - John wrote:
I think targeting BGP advertising for /16 subnets
would be a good benchmark. That would mean less than 256 entries for core routers.
(Fewer if some were combined.)
Each of the /16 subnets should have a competent router in a data center with bandwidth,
backup power, etc. and some agreement for continuity.
Anyone wishing to sponsor/administer one of these "Tier 1" routers should
demonstrate:
• Financial viability to keep it up and running for an extended and indefinite period.
This could include a MOU of donated bandwidth, underwriting by some entity, and/or pledges
of financial support.
• A capable router (with a spare) or routers. We could specify reference
hardware/software.
• For example, I would suggest something like
http://routerboard.com/pdf/348/RB1100AH.pdf
• Up to 3 Gbit/Sec aggregate throughput,
• Multiple Ethernet ports for bonding / failover / dedicated management LAN, etc.
• MPLS (bypass regular routing for identified traffic)
• Unlimited (except by memory/tablespace) VPN tunnels (IPIP, PPTP, LT2P, OpenVPN,
...)
• IPv4/IPv6 capabilities
• Committed, primary and backup administrators with competence in IP Network
administration and design.
• Ownership of the router(s) should probably be held by an organization (Non Profit?)
for continuity, which has a charter, bylaws, and procedures to insure continuity as
volunteers accept or resign responsibilities.
Much of the motivation for Net-44 is related to Emergency Communications support (at
least in North America) so you want these "Tier 1" routers to be
"hardened" as much as possible.
The "Tier 1" routers should be closely aligned with a network manager (who is
also the address administrator for the associated /16 subnet). The network manager would
work with any "Tier 2" router managers (LANs, etc.) to build out further subnets
and routes within the /16 subnet.
Each /16 subnet also needs other services, such as DNS services (including delegated sub
domain / dynamic DNS), online application for address space, management, and reporting.
John D. Hays
K7VEPO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 13:09, Brian Kantor <Brian(a)ucsd.edu> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 12:37:24PM -0800, Tim Osburn wrote:
Brian and All,
I always thought it was a waste of a routable /8 to not have it
routed on the Internet, otherwise why are people just not using IANA
space instead? However, if it is to be routed on the internet I think
some ground rules must be established of what is and is not
acceptable and penalties for not following the rules and established
guidelines.
I imagine we'll have to have rules and some sort of binding agreement/contract.
Additionally, and I bring this up again, a
RWHOIS server should/must
be used (tied in with ARIN on the 44/8 allocation) so that people can
query specific address space that will return the contact/owner of
whatever space is being advertised for whatever reason. Additionally,
IRR entries should also be required for anyone wanting to advertise
space via BGP. Those should be some common sence polices that need to
be followed at the very minimum.
Yes, we'd have to do that, and that brings up the issue of who is to
do this - I'm willing but I'm running out of time to do these sorts
of things. We're going to need volunteers to run the rwhois server,
to keep the data up to date, to update the IRR entries, and so on.
This is going to be a big commitment if we decide to do it. In an all
volunteer organization, how will we do what needs to be done?
- Brian
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net