ON is going to be announced through Belnet and a few commercial transit providers soon from multiple geographical locations which are interlinked with 5ghz wifi (nanobridges etc), we are waiting for our AS number. Thanks to sweden for the example with SUNet which made it easier for me to talk to belnet :)
73s Robbie ON4SAX
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12:00 AM, Marc, LX1DUC lx1duc@rlx.lu wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 24/07/2013 20:44, Michael E. Fox - N6MEF wrote:
I certainly don't think it's a good idea to route every internal connection through some centralized gateway somewhere, even if more than one exists. It puts a failure point between me and my destination and it degrades the performance into and out of that gateway. Yes, it increases physical diversity, but it also depends on iBGP and multiple network managers doing the right thing. So removes some failure modes while introducing others. It also makes troubleshooting more of a problem. Today, if I can't reach another gateway, I talk to the person directly. If everything goes through some other point, there's a third location to test with. That would be impractical.
You are absolutely right. Some networks do have the possibility to run the IPIP fullmesh. However you could still benefit from a "local" BGP gateway in terms of access to/from the Internet. For example the subnets for DL, F, G, PA, ON, LX etc could be announced by a gateway in Europe (and via the 44.0.0.0/8 announce as a backup via all the other gateways) and injected in Europe into the IPIP fullmesh.
OTOH some networks cannot connect using the IPIP fullmesh and need to connect using some other tunnel protocol (PPTP, OpenVPN, etc). You could say that those networks are "assisted" networks and they require a "proxy gateway" to connect them to the existing IPIP fullmesh.
These "proxy gateways", if BGP enabled, could announce the local "assisted" networks via BGP and route traffic from the internet directly to the IPIP endpoint or the assisted network and vice versa route traffic from the 44net to the Internet directly via the local upstream provider. That way the proxy gateway wouldn't have to route the non-44net traffic via UCSD. (Btw not every proxy gateway must have to be a BGP gateway.)
This could bring several possible advantages:
- multiple gateway from 44net to/from internet, resilience
- bandwidth distribution onto several gateways
- latency and possibly bandwidth increase for intra-continental
traffic (no real change for North America, but traffic from/to asian 44net to/from asian internet could benefit from a local asian proxy gateway, the same goes for Africa, South America, Europe, etc).
So this discussion is certainly not about replacing the IPIP fullmesh but more about offering additional ways to participate in the IPIP fullmesh.
73 de Marc, LX1DUC
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJR8E6SAAoJEHFIN1T8ZA8vgskP/1U7LZI0jx1D3BBDNnNvDKAA McgtXjbYmyDKWXvWYGf0CEOYpq2MdCvqggP0GxXm/ytyr+ct/wfNnPTibTXxLc87 B5d7s7mjBZO5p3sv228x+N1G0Kl4g/z9qjZ33ihox0JvPc1aLjmvdX2a753IJXiY CZ5RXe8mPpnNI6eNsDvsYKiikWlZMP8wB9q5OV2Jc20uJcU1YJKsY4yZtVasGIOB CYBtuzptkP+VWFBL+yG408gAGhq0ZZFpGHK2euBhBV02Z1yZGcEuR7EtOfU2NBUc 9uRkRxiGB/5QSk96l5Iz1QSbQLygFXseLa93SS059xC6CK4fQLwuuJYnP0UV5wDo AXDpP2LEjsWkfDWzy/QT1W5UwH9TICO3qEc/FOlxqVSHweBEIvGfTtMEsArtMfwm dhFPqDV1ZypqfjuiDgk1cSc2AXR6n937Q6nL2x60ZcSJ3HYlp0GNFJYaEAm8ung4 LyhHSu+hBHi3oTKBXJvuWWtqX5yLxC0slrelPg1OkZk1FOdoY3oi95yFTuJTntWe oni3JzYhSKd0jBVZ4M2JQlF+61Dy8RJmLMhQoTIdURKOoSnheA8DQ6RDC+h5hUXb G//arx3liGvavN2DK4sfE+LteIbfK0ZnRSXHrZ37BJk6U++Rdva99oaM0W48URDI woar9kCVK4nnGBOyHkfI =awyj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _________________________________________ 44Net mailing list 44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net http://www.ampr.org/donate.html