22 May
2022
22 May
'22
5:27 p.m.
Wireguard is indeed very easy to set up and run, I am a big fan of it in general. But
Wireguard has the distinct disadvantage of being UDP only. OpenVPN can use UDP or TCP
based tunnels. For IRLP we chose to use TCP based tunnels.
While TCP has much more overhead, we found that with some connection technologies, TCP can
work wonders over flaky infrastructure, and high jitter connections. IRLP actually
requires very little bandwidth, less than 100 kbps maximum. But to work well, the packets
must arrive in the correct order, even if there is a bit of added delay. TCP numbers each
packet and always will deliver them in the correct order, or asks for retransmission. TCP
sessions are also easier to maintain over uncooperative routers or networks. Many
repeaters use cellular based links, the quality of which can vary a lot, especially if the
node/repeater is mobile.
—
Dave K9DC, K9IP
On May 22, 2022, at 14:43, David Andrzejewski via
44net <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> wrote:
I might suggest WireGuard instead of OpenVPN. I know it's newer but it's also a
bit easier to use and set up.
That said, I fully agree with your point about the learning aspect of routing. I think
there's a balance to be struck - ham radio is about learning, but there shouldn't
be a high barrier to entry.
Dave/ad8g
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve L via 44net <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2022 14:25
To: Rosy Schechter - KJ7RYV <rosy(a)ardc.net>
Cc: Amprnet 44 Net <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org>
Subject: [44net] Re: 44Net Assessment Kickoff - Survey!
Good survey
I just completed it and I have some other comments.
The IPIP mesh is not plug and play, which for folks like me who are interested in
learning routing has been an invaluable learning exercise. I hope something like this can
always continue.
However there are other use cases that are more plug and play. One being supporting
internet connected infrastructure (ie. IRLP, Allstar, DMR, D-Star etc). All of which
mostly require a public IPV4 address and the ability to port forward. Such is not the
case with cellular providers and will only become more of an issue as the global pool
IPv4 addresses shrinks. A system of geographic POP’s should be deployed. The POP’s
might want to use OpenVPN as it's well supported and issues automated keys or the ARRL
LoTW method. It would be wise to limit the bandwidth to something modest and employ a DPI
technique to drop bittorrent fingerprints to ease overall administration.
Short of ARDC supporting POP’s, then you’re looking at outside groups making this happen.
But these will likely be service specific. Ex, I believe IRLP has done so with some
assigned address space.
Current geographic portal allocations are based on CIDR style routing.
Which makes sense if you intend to interact with existing (legacy) RF networks. Perhaps a
portal question should exist to point them to their geographic allocation or not. If the
intent is non RF or mesh, then a different allocation methodology should be employed (next
chunk in sequence)
I’ll stress again knowing who is doing what is always good so one can privately
coordinate forwarding partners, etc, and just folks to experiment with.
Steve, KB9MWR