The tunnel interface is a gateway to the rest of the class A network. You have to allow this by setting a netmask of netmask 255.0.0.0
An your second ethernet interface to your radio LAN, you may set a smaller netmask.
Steve
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 24/08/2013 22:06, kb9mwr@gmail.com wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ The tunnel interface is a gateway to the rest of the class A network. You have to allow this by setting a netmask of netmask 255.0.0.0
An your second ethernet interface to your radio LAN, you may set a smaller netmask.
Only true if you're using the amprd encapsulation and routing daemon.
For all other cases the tunl0 interface is defined without a remote host ip address, setting the mask to 255.0.0.0 might bypass the static routes setup via rip44d or encap.txt or any other way. Connected routes usually have a higher preference than static routes. So unless you're using the new amprd, usage of netmask 255.0.0.0 might result in issues contacting non-local AMPR subnets.
In the style of your description from above, the tunl0 is not the gateway to the AMPR network 44.0.0.0/8 as the tunl0 is setup without a remote host address. As such the tunl0 interface will allow you to reach exactly 0 hosts within the AMPRnet without the routes created by rip44d or other means. With rip44d the gateway is provided via the routes added to the kernel routing table.
73 de Marc, LX1DUC
On Sat, 24 Aug 2013, Marc, LX1DUC wrote:
For all other cases the tunl0 interface is defined without a remote host ip address, setting the mask to 255.0.0.0 might bypass the static routes setup via rip44d or encap.txt or any other way. Connected routes usually have a higher preference than static routes.
Only if the routes have the same prefix-length. Otherwise longest match wins is still the rule.
So unless you're using the new amprd, usage of netmask 255.0.0.0 might result in issues contacting non-local AMPR subnets.
How many non-local AMPR subnets do you know of that have a prefix length of 8 or less? :)
Antonio Querubin e-mail: tony@lavanauts.org xmpp: antonioquerubin@gmail.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
For all other cases the tunl0 interface is defined without a remote host ip address, setting the mask to 255.0.0.0 might bypass the static routes setup via rip44d or encap.txt or any other way. Connected routes usually have a higher preference than static routes.
Only if the routes have the same prefix-length. Otherwise longest match wins is still the rule.
If a route is missing the local connected route 44.0.0.0/8 will have a higher priority than the static route 44.0.0.0/8 via UCSD, resulting in the inability to reach those networks for which a direct route is missing.
So unless you're using the new amprd, usage of netmask 255.0.0.0 might result in issues contacting non-local AMPR subnets.
How many non-local AMPR subnets do you know of that have a prefix length of 8 or less? :)
See comment above.
73 de Marc, LX1UDC
-
Antonio Querubin -
kb9mwr＠gmail.com -
Marc, LX1DUC