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.