On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Don Fanning don@00100100.net wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 10:26 AM, K7VE - John k7ve@k7ve.org wrote:
(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.
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.
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?
It doesn't, but that should be a choice left to the endpoints.
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.
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.
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.
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