25 Apr
2014
25 Apr
'14
9:14 p.m.
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Don Fanning <don(a)00100100.net> wrote:
It doesn't, but that should be a choice left to the endpoints.
As already stated there are such routers already in place in Sweden,
Belgium, Germany, US, Canada, and other locations. The people that
run them have arrangements to do so, and the "masses" don't have to
worry about that.
If you want a TOS of 5 9's you aren't talking amateur radio. Don't
overlay business/government network requirements to what is
essentially an experimenter's network, that may have some need for
reliable services which can be addressed in data centers and by
replication and other methods.
Data center resources are getting uber-cheap -- check out
http://www.cloudatcost.com
________________________________
John D. Hays
K7VE
PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 10:26 AM, K7VE - John <k7ve(a)k7ve.org> wrote:
So how do you do it now? You use an IPIP tunnel (another type of
VPN), nothing changes for the end user except, his tables get much
smaller, she routes local 44.x.x.x traffic locally and uses an IPIP
tunnel to a tier or border router.
I'm not talking about one basket, but even if I was, it probably would
have greater overall reliability than the 386 JNOS machine with
hundreds of IPIP rules.
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
A few, maybe as little as 10, border nodes might run BGP and *provide
VPN/Tunnel services to everyone else* and not everyone needs to run the
same VPN/Tunnel protocol. Routing takes care of getting from point A to
point B.
As others have already mentioned, some ISP's charge extra for VPN traffic.
And again, you create bottlenecks placing all your eggs into one basket.
This is getting circular.
The idea is to have a fully connected address
space using the
Internet/BGP to interconnect.
Why does every IP need to be internet accessible directly?
There can be
multi-homing and tiers to minimize single points of failure.
How many of you can say your 'home' ampr-lan doesn't have a single point
of failure?
I can, but I've already said I'm a special case. However I don't have
any
machine directly connected to the internet that is behoven to a single
network gateway or provider.
What you're asking is for people around the world to connect to your group
of routers (which will likely be US based - increasing latency for those
outside of north america) just so that they can talk to one another or
receive public traffic if they're not able to afford the $1000 or more for
AS registration + RIR membership + ISP announcement costs + maintenance
costs. Again, I think you are proposing a big mistake and a class system.
Encap/IPIP and RIP tables could theoretically
have 16 million entries for
Net-44, why not use aggregation and a tiered network instead?
Because it causes bottlenecks and SPOF's. Unless you can contractually
provide me a TOS with 5 9's of reliability under heavy penalties, people
are better off being responsible for their own traffic. If you are willing
to offer that, then I'll be glad to sign up.