17 Jun
2015
17 Jun
'15
1:48 a.m.
It was I who deleted it because I was told it was causing problems.
If that was wrong and it was working and not causing problems
then I can put it back or Tom can.
- Brian
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 01:42:00AM -0400, Boudewijn (Bob) Tenty wrote:
Can't you put that entry back if that worked Tom?
Bob VE3TOK
On 15-06-16 09:55 PM, Tom Hayward wrote:
>BTW, HamWAN used to be "in the RIP list". The entry was deleted by an
>AMPR administrator because he thought it wasn't working. We were using
>44.24.221.1 as the gateway address. This address was advertised via
>BGP, accessible from the internet at large, and intentionally NOT
>advertised via RIP so that other gateways would not try to contact it
>inside an IPIP packet. This setup was spot-checked from a number of
>other AMPR systems and proven to work.
>
>The only case where it didn't work is when administrators added a
>static 44/8 route to their gateway. Note that there is no 44/8 route
>in the RIP/encap list.
>
>We're at a bit of a stalemate now. We'd have to reconfigure things a
>bit and utilize another IP address from our ISP to get it running on a
>non-44 gateway IP. The simpler solution (and one that serves all BGP
>networks) is to work towards solving the underlying BGP/IPIP
>interoperability problem that started this thread.