16 Apr
2014
16 Apr
'14
2:35 p.m.
On Apr 11, 2014, at 12:10 PM, Bryan Fields <Bryan(a)bryanfields.net> wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
On 4/11/14, 12:04 PM, Bart Kus wrote:
I have a /24 out of 44/8, which I announce in the Washington DC area (Equinix DC2), it has
one of the core APRS-IS servers (fifth.aprs.net in particular) and other peering points
around the world (AS 8121).
Well, IPIP itself is not the problem. It avoids
the costs of Internet
BGP peering. What is a problem is the lack of dead-peer-detection
between IPIP gateways. If intra-AMPR BGP peering was actually deployed
as part of the general recommendations then we wouldn't need to anycast
to achieve redundancy. But as it stands, the deployed technologies are
very light, and anycasting our IPIP endpoint is the easiest way to
achieve the desired redundancy. We do plan to make special BGP+IPSec
arrangements with select AMPRnet peers to further improve our
availability and security, but there's no need to do any of that work on
the mailing list.
I'd say we should keep it on the mailing list. I'm very interested in what
others are doing with BGP announced AMPRnet space! I'd be interested in interconnecting if you need a
gateway or something. I've
got a good relationship with my upstream in Tampa. Granted the latency to WA
is a bit much :)
Yes, same here.
73,
-jav k4jh