Hello,
Beginning on March 15th, the pseudo-RIP transmissions from amprgw
will include the various subnet prefixes which are being advertised
by BGP. They will show a next-hop address of 169.228.34.84, which
is amprgw.
Marius assures me that this will cause no harm, and will enable
tunnel-only AMPRNet hosts to reach those destinations via the tunnel.
He says that many tunnel-connected hosts have a semi-default route
to amprgw that has to be manually installed when the system is set
up; this would now be automatic when employing the various ampr-rip
programs.
Quoting Marius:
So, wouldn't it make sense to publish BGP routed networks that
do not have 'tunnel ' set in the portal as RIP routes using
amprgw as gateway?
This would solve some issues: - Users could actually see all
reachable destinations in their route list
- Users could easily identify BGP networks by checking 169.228.34.84
as their gateway
- they could drop the setting of that 'default' route in the
ampr routing table, allowing a (implicit) throw to the main
table. This will make it easier to reach local or directly
connected ampr networks (which now need routes placed in the
ampr table). Also, unknown destinations would be NATed to the
system's gateway, without putting any additional traffic to
amprgw.
- it would also allow to have all routes in a single routing
table while being able to reach tunneled and BGPd networks using
their AMPR address without policy routing.
Existing set-ups would not affected by such a change in any way.
Marius, YO2LOJ
Please be sure to let me know if there are any problems with this
change; it can be reverted in a matter of moments if an unexpected
difficulty does arise.
- Brian