11 Aug
2021
11 Aug
'21
4:35 p.m.
Le 11/08/2021 à 10:50, Rob PE1CHL via 44Net a écrit :
Yes, but it is a solution that cannot cover every case
and it causes a lot of work for lots of people who are not involved in this artificial
problem at all.
I understand. My opinion is probably biased by the low amount of subnets
to renumber (20). The problem is not the same if you have 200 or 2000.
It would be interesting to identify the exact number of people who would
have to renumber, and how much IPs are concerned.
Anyway, people often say I'm manic-depressive, I do enjoy clean and
well-organized things, HI :-) That's the reason why re-organizing the
two different routing schemes in two separate big subnets seems a good
idea to me :-)
For a user, it should not matter if a subnet is
announced on BGP. They just connect to a next hop in the network which knows about that.
+1
There should be a backbone network which, just like
the current IPIP mesh, knows how to route everything.
But, it should be easier to access than the IPIP mesh. So everyone can use it, not only
those with a fixed internet IP and router that can pass IPIP, and a lot of technical
knowledge to debug issues. Therefore tunneling technologies that work over typical ISP
NAT routers should be used.
+1
For a long time now, everything has worked perfectly
for those users who announce on internet BGP and do ALSO register on the IPIP mesh.
They know how to route to other IPIP mesh members via a tunnel and route the remainder to
internet. They are reachable for everyone that has sane routing.
Of course, it works. But every sysadmin has to know exactly how to route
every subnet. F/ex, not everybody knows 44.190 routing policy. Grouping
into "Internet" and "Intranet" categories, each category in a parent
subnet, would hugely simplify things. But managing a database on the
portal about what subnet is Intranet and what subnet is Internet would
probably do the job, too. Some scripts could update routing policies
from the portal at POP level, which will be managed by skilled
sysadmins. Not really "KISS", but it would work.
That is a design issue. It can be easily solved
especially when the new backbone network is present that can do BGP annouces itself, so it
is completely transparent to the users if each subnet is on the tunneled network, or on a
44-net subnet only announced on internet. It will always be routed correctly without the
operator needing to set separate routes.
Separate routes will still be needed at POP level. Endpoints will just
route all to the nearest POP, so that things remain simple. At least for
remote endpoints connected to a POP via a tunnel; but for endpoints
connected to several neighbors via meshed radio links, things may not be
as simple...
--
This makes me think our previous idea of a 3-level topology (backbone,
POP, Access) may not be enough. Maybe, we need an intermediate :
- Backbone : world-wide infrastructure managed by ARDC, and providing
network background
- Point of Presence (POP) : local / regional platform, connected to the
backbone, and providing connectivity to end-users
- (new) Router : Intermediate mesh router, connected to several
neighbors via radio links, and contributing to the global routing in
relation with nearest POPs
- Access : Small low-cost router (Mikrotik/OpenWRT etc...) or software
(VPN client, RPi) offering 44net IPs to endpoints by connecting to one
or several POPs with PnP technologies
Maybe Router and Access can be different software layers installed on
the same hardware (Mikrotik / OpenWRT can do that). Every endpoint needs
an Access role. An endpoint can have both Access and Router roles. But
not all endpoints need to be Routers.
--
Until we agree on the renumbering proposal, let's wait for the backbone
/ POP proposal, HI :-)
73 de TK1BI