15 Mar
2012
15 Mar
'12
2:58 p.m.
All,
I actually had a thought on this before I read the current line of discussion. Alot has
been highlighted on the nature of a 501(c)3 and what it can and cannot do (feel free to
read up on the IRS.gov publications). A 501(c)7 is also a route we may wish to take
(depending on California Law and if the filing for determination process had not already
proceeded). I also noted that keeping it for Amateur use by Hams is a very good idea.
Also recall that we need to keep the network flexible, as testing and development of new
protocols and types of equipment, etc. is also something that may become of interest in
the future. Also, if you are going to announce space, I am capable of having it housed; so
agreements regarding equipment, etc. would be on an Intergovernmental network in my area
that RACES and local Emergency Radio Foundation will petition for a seat on, we don't
happen to have any carrier-grade network equipment in our shacks on the East Coast (lol)..
HSMM-MESH seems like something we want to experiment on right now.
In addition, we peer with non-commercial networks; NetworkMaryland is the ISP that we wish
to approach for holding an announcement. And it will be Internally BGPed to my County.
I'd like to talk with my State Coordinator about this. I know that we are a network
neighbour to the Internet2.edu backbone and other carries as well.
~73,
Lynwood
KB3VWG
44.60.44/24
15 Mar
15 Mar
5:46 p.m.
New subject: directly routed subnets
Lynwood and others.
actually we do have carrier class equipment for HRMM. Ubiquiti makes very nice 2.4, 3.4
and 5ghz radios. look on eBay. the one catch for part 97 only frequencies you must have
acces to the international models. These allow setup outside the part 15 bands. Oh your
thinking I will have a hard time getting a hold of these. Nope we have access to all you
want at cost +shipping and packaging costs.
Lin
16 Mar
16 Mar
4 a.m.
New subject: directly routed subnets
I've looked at those ubiquiti radios -- like the nanostations and rockets. I'd be
interested in some of the 97-able ones.
-----Original Message-----
From: 44net-bounces+dsjameyson=dan247.com(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
[mailto:44net-bounces+dsjameyson=dan247.com@hamradio.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Lin Holcomb
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 2:46 PM
To: AMPRNet working group
Subject: Re: [44net] directly routed subnets
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
Lynwood and others.
actually we do have carrier class equipment for HRMM. Ubiquiti makes very nice 2.4, 3.4
and 5ghz radios. look on eBay. the one catch for part 97 only frequencies you must have
acces to the international models. These allow setup outside the part 15 bands. Oh your
thinking I will have a hard time getting a hold of these. Nope we have access to all you
want at cost +shipping and packaging costs.
Lin
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
5:20 a.m.
New subject: directly routed subnets
We have tested bsome of those ubiquiti links in our African projects
where we support the deployment of university networks. I can share a
1.3MB PDF report of the tests if anyone is interested. I would also be
interested in procurement details.
On 2012-03-16 09:00, Dan Jameyson wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
I've looked at those ubiquiti radios -- like the nanostations and rockets. I'd be
interested in some of the 97-able ones.
-----Original Message-----
From: 44net-bounces+dsjameyson=dan247.com(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
[mailto:44net-bounces+dsjameyson=dan247.com@hamradio.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Lin Holcomb
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 2:46 PM
To: AMPRNet working group
Subject: Re: [44net] directly routed subnets
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
Lynwood and others.
actually we do have carrier class equipment for HRMM. Ubiquiti makes very nice 2.4, 3.4
and 5ghz radios. look on eBay. the one catch for part 97 only frequencies you must have
acces to the international models. These allow setup outside the part 15 bands. Oh your
thinking I will have a hard time getting a hold of these. Nope we have access to all you
want at cost +shipping and packaging costs.
Lin
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
10:05 a.m.
New subject: directly routed subnets
If we can do it as a group that would be great. I dont want to nag them
with one or two at a time and wear our our welcome we can start another
thread for a group buy if that is OK with Brian or we can go off list what
ever. I will be going to DE next week does anyone know the German Hamnet
guys? (or are they on the list) I want to take a look at waht they are
doing.
Lin
10:41 a.m.
New subject: directly routed subnets
Lin,
The Germans are obviously better organised than the Swedes regarding
AMPRnet.
Have you checked out http://www.de.ampr.org/doku.php/wiki/syntax ?
It is something similar I am trying to get going in Sweden.
I had a couple of very informal discussions with friends involved in the
operation of the Swedish University Network (SUNET) about the
possibility to start announcing the Swedish AMPR space (44.140/16) from
a research network connected to Sunet via BGP peering.
None of my contacts saw a direct show stopper, but all of them
emphasized that before the questions is popped formally via a proposal,
which the SUNET board can accept or reject, there has to be a crystal
clear acceptable use policy (AUP) and an enforcement model with
acceptable sanctions if the AUP is broken.
SUNET is known to be fairly liberal but a minimal requirement is of
course that its own AUP is not violated. The SUNET AUP is available at
http://basun.sunet.se/html_docs/info_sunet/rules.html. The AMPRnet AUP
probably has to be much more restrictive to conform to ham license
rules. A preamble should probably also include pointers to evidence of
public good aspects, especially from a research and higher education
perspective.
Is this path worth pursuing?
On 2012-03-16 15:05, Lin Holcomb wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
If we can do it as a group that would be great. I dont want to nag
them with one or two at a time and wear our our welcome we can start
another thread for a group buy if that is OK with Brian or we can go
off list what ever. I will be going to DE next week does anyone know
the German Hamnet guys? (or are they on the list) I want to take a
look at waht they are doing.
Lin
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
11:12 a.m.
New subject: directly routed subnets
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 03:41:04PM +0100, Bjorn Pehrson wrote:
I had a couple of very informal discussions with
friends involved in
the operation of the Swedish University Network (SUNET) about the
possibility to start announcing the Swedish AMPR space (44.140/16)
from a research network connected to Sunet via BGP peering.
My thoughts were along the line of announcing smaller pieces than an
entire existing allocation.
- Brian
1:36 p.m.
New subject: directly routed subnets
OK, fine, at this stage everything should be possible. I have found it
hard to get general peering agreements for anything less than /24
though. One reason seems to be that there is still equipment out there
that is not CIDR-capable.
On 2012-03-16 16:12, Brian Kantor wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 03:41:04PM +0100, Bjorn Pehrson wrote:
I had a couple of very informal discussions with
friends involved in
the operation of the Swedish University Network (SUNET) about the
possibility to start announcing the Swedish AMPR space (44.140/16)
from a research network connected to Sunet via BGP peering.
My thoughts were along
the line of announcing smaller pieces than an
entire existing allocation.
- Brian
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
2:10 p.m.
New subject: directly routed subnets
I have yet to find anything that is doing core BGP peering that is not CIDR capable. The
main reason for not doing anything less than a /24 is lack of memory and not filling up
the route table with a zillion prefixes. Sprint started this in the early days. I find
that few if any peers enforce this of late as you can see a bunch of prefixes that are
less than a /24 being announced. Check out routeviews.org to see.
That being said, in order to be good neighbors out there and follow conventions, we should
not be announcing anything less than a /24.
Tim
On Mar 16, 2012, at 10:36 AM, Bjorn Pehrson wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
OK, fine, at this stage everything should be possible. I have found it hard to get
general peering agreements for anything less than /24 though. One reason seems to be that
there is still equipment out there that is not CIDR-capable.
2:30 p.m.
New subject: directly routed subnets
I think managing proper use of the address space (e.g. use for ham radio)
is better facilitated by having fewer BGP advertisements. E.g. if we only
allow /16 network BGP advertisements we only add 256 entries. All other
subnets under the /16 can be tunneled -- if you have a bad actor, simply
revoke their tunnel.
In most cases, I think, a smaller subnet advert is probably more of a
"vanity" thing, than a network need.
------------------------------
John D. Hays
K7VE
PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223
<http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>
<http://www.facebook.com/john.d.hays>
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 11:10, Tim Pozar <pozar(a)lns.com> wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
I have yet to find anything that is doing core BGP peering that is not
CIDR capable. The main reason for not doing anything less than a /24 is
lack of memory and not filling up the route table with a zillion prefixes.
Sprint started this in the early days. I find that few if any peers
enforce this of late as you can see a bunch of prefixes that are less than
a /24 being announced. Check out routeviews.org to see.
That being said, in order to be good neighbors out there and follow
conventions, we should not be announcing anything less than a /24.
Tim
2:47 p.m.
New subject: directly routed subnets
I admit it was a few years ago, around the turn of the millennium, so
that things might have changed, but I had to change an experimental
network due to the fact that the US Navy had a border router that was
not CIDR capable.
Memory these days is so cheap so most border routers can hold the entire
routing table, even open source PC-routers.
But anyway, as we seem to agree, it is probably wise avoiding anything
less than /24
On 2012-03-16 19:10, Tim Pozar wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
I have yet to find anything that is doing core BGP peering that is not CIDR capable. The
main reason for not doing anything less than a /24 is lack of memory and not filling up
the route table with a zillion prefixes. Sprint started this in the early days. I find
that few if any peers enforce this of late as you can see a bunch of prefixes that are
less than a /24 being announced. Check out routeviews.org to see.
That being said, in order to be good neighbors out there and follow conventions, we
should not be announcing anything less than a /24.
Tim
On Mar 16, 2012, at 10:36 AM, Bjorn Pehrson wrote:
3:27 p.m.
New subject: directly routed subnets
Greetings,
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012, Bjorn Pehrson wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
I admit it was a few years ago, around the turn of the millennium, so that
things might have changed, but I had to change an experimental network due to
the fact that the US Navy had a border router that was not CIDR capable.
Memory these days is so cheap so most border routers can hold the entire
routing table, even open source PC-routers.
But anyway, as we seem to agree, it is probably wise avoiding anything less
than /24
It will be like pulling hens teeth to get a BGP announcement accepted
for anything less that /24. Many networks still will not allow anything
less than /19, so networks need to aggregated. The routing table is
MIGHTY big folks! There are now over 401,129 networks being announced
through 40,373 ASN's. We will just be adding to the noise floor...
Analysis Summary
----------------
BGP routing table entries examined: 401129
Prefixes after maximum aggregation: 170803
Deaggregation factor: 2.35
Unique aggregates announced to Internet: 194695
Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 40373
Prefixes per ASN: 9.94
Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 32891
Origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 15486
Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 5406
Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 141
Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table: 4.4
Max AS path length visible: 33
Max AS path prepend of ASN (48687) 24
Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 407
Unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 187
Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs: 2322
Number of 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 2076
Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table: 5015
Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table: 2
Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space: 687
Number of addresses announced to Internet: 2526912912
Equivalent to 150 /8s, 157 /16s and 161 /24s
Percentage of available address space announced: 68.2
Percentage of allocated address space announced: 68.2
Percentage of available address space allocated: 100.0
Percentage of address space in use by end-sites: 92.1
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 170384
--- Jay Nugent WB8TKL
() ascii ribbon campaign in
/\ support of plain text e-mail
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Jay Nugent jjn(a)nuge.com (734)484-5105 (734)649-0850/Cell |
| Nugent Telecommunications [www.nuge.com] |
| Internet Consulting/Linux SysAdmin/Engineering & Design/ISP Reseller |
| ISP Monitoring [www.ispmonitor.org] ISP & Modem Performance Monitoring |
| Web-Pegasus [www.webpegasus.com] Web Hosting/DNS Hosting/Shell Accts|
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
15:01:01 up 193 days, 20:39, 3 users, load average: 0.02, 0.05, 0.34
7:16 p.m.
New subject: directly routed subnets
What would make sense to me would be the following:
Each country have a BGP advertisement for their respective segment of the network.
This would then team up with regional BGP regional routers such as statewide routers.
From there the county or isolated smaller cidr domains
would peer to this router using tunnels etc.
This gives a many point distribution of the data.
For those locations that cannot direct BGP advertise, this can be performed using GRE or
OpenVPN if VPN solutions should need to be employed.
This is similar to the peering that is used in many global MPLS networks. Riding on top
of that could be olsr or ospf routes between peers, thus creating a decentralized
network.
For Louisiana our plans are to use the tunnel method at a core router located on a tier 1
provider. Then all others tunnel to it or have direct rf path that they can then BGP
advertise their respective sub CIDR range.
Best regards,
Elias Basse
KD5JFE
Sent from my iPhone
18 Mar
18 Mar
8:57 a.m.
New subject: Mini ATX Intel BOXD525MW Intel Atom D525
I was looking at a cheap replacement for a remote Jnos node and came up
with this suite:
Intel BOXD525MW Intel Atom D525@ 1.8GHz (Dual Core) BGA559 Intel NM10 Mini
ITX Motherboard/CPU Combo
iStarUSA D-213-MATX Black Metal/ Aluminum 2U Rackmount microATX Server
Chassis 1 External 5.25" Drive Bays
Added 4GB 204-Pin DDR3 SO-DIMM and a used SATA 80gb harddrive. Everything
less than $200
I could not find any intel Atom kernel configurations that addressed this
mobo but put enough together to come up with a working .config (tar.gz
attached). Probably needs more work and could use adjustment by someone
with more kernel insight than I have.
OS is Gentoo Linux with 3.2.11 kernel (kernel via genkernel with ramdisk)
The system is quite fast, passively cooled (the case fans are a little
noisy though) and like I said above fairly cheap.
If anyone jumps into the D525 Atom development, especially the kernel
config, please keep me in the loop.
73, JohnF
12:56 p.m.
New subject: Mini ATX Intel BOXD525MW Intel Atom D525
Intel BOXD525MW Intel Atom D525@ 1.8GHz (Dual Core)
BGA559 Intel NM10 Mini
ITX Motherboard/CPU Combo
iStarUSA D-213-MATX Black Metal/ Aluminum 2U Rackmount microATX Server
Chassis 1 External 5.25" Drive Bays
Added 4GB 204-Pin DDR3 SO-DIMM and a used SATA 80gb harddrive. Everything
less than $200
I could not find any intel Atom kernel configurations that addressed this
mobo but put enough together to come up with a working .config (tar.gz
attached). Probably needs more work and could use adjustment by someone
with more kernel insight than I have.
OS is Gentoo Linux with 3.2.11 kernel (kernel via genkernel with ramdisk)
The system is quite fast, passively cooled (the case fans are a little
noisy though) and like I said above fairly cheap.
If anyone jumps into the D525 Atom development, especially the kernel
config, please keep me in the loop.
73, JohnF
Hi John,
I'm not clear what information you are looking for? I have an Intel
Pinetree D510 based motherboard. I did initially look to see if someone
had figured out a more streamlined .config, but as it has worked fine
from day one, I never expended much effort on it, so I'm still running
a stock kernel (Ubuntu 10.04LTS).
Regards
John
EI7IG
19 Mar
19 Mar
10:26 a.m.
New subject: Mini ATX Intel BOXD525MW Intel Atom D525
Fine tuning for the .config in light the dual core intel D525 Atom and
NM10 Express chipset. I have it running solid but there is always room for
improvement. The Xorg-server is working with Gnome with the built-in intel
video interface.
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
Intel BOXD525MW Intel Atom D525@ 1.8GHz (Dual
Core) BGA559 Intel NM10
Mini
ITX Motherboard/CPU Combo
iStarUSA D-213-MATX Black Metal/ Aluminum 2U Rackmount microATX Server
Chassis 1 External 5.25" Drive Bays
Added 4GB 204-Pin DDR3 SO-DIMM and a used SATA 80gb harddrive.
Everything
less than $200
I could not find any intel Atom kernel configurations that addressed
this
mobo but put enough together to come up with a working .config (tar.gz
attached). Probably needs more work and could use adjustment by someone
with more kernel insight than I have.
OS is Gentoo Linux with 3.2.11 kernel (kernel via genkernel with
ramdisk)
The system is quite fast, passively cooled (the case fans are a little
noisy though) and like I said above fairly cheap.
If anyone jumps into the D525 Atom development, especially the kernel
config, please keep me in the loop.
73, JohnF
Hi John,
I'm not clear what information you are looking for? I have an Intel
Pinetree D510 based motherboard. I did initially look to see if someone
had figured out a more streamlined .config, but as it has worked fine
from day one, I never expended much effort on it, so I'm still running
a stock kernel (Ubuntu 10.04LTS).
Regards
John
EI7IG
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
18 Mar
18 Mar
1:38 p.m.
New subject: Mini ATX Intel BOXD525MW Intel Atom D525
We are using a supermicro X7SPA-HF-D525 motherboard with Intel D525 as a
low-power, solar-driven (fan-less) router in our African installations
(e.g. www.ict4rd.ne.tz). Motherboard plus a NIC with 4*1GE optical (sfp)
ports routes ~700 kpps at ~20W under full load. There are a few papers
on it if you are interested.
We are using a small linux distro optimized for routing called Bifrost.
You can find the distro at
http://ftp.sunet.se/pub/Linux/distributions/bifrost/
If you want to share your design, I could perhaps explore of we could
help you implementing it under bifrost?
On 2012-03-18 13:57, John Feist wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
I was looking at a cheap replacement for a remote Jnos node and came up
with this suite:
Intel BOXD525MW Intel Atom D525@ 1.8GHz (Dual Core) BGA559 Intel NM10 Mini
ITX Motherboard/CPU Combo
iStarUSA D-213-MATX Black Metal/ Aluminum 2U Rackmount microATX Server
Chassis 1 External 5.25" Drive Bays
Added 4GB 204-Pin DDR3 SO-DIMM and a used SATA 80gb harddrive. Everything
less than $200
I could not find any intel Atom kernel configurations that addressed this
mobo but put enough together to come up with a working .config (tar.gz
attached). Probably needs more work and could use adjustment by someone
with more kernel insight than I have.
OS is Gentoo Linux with 3.2.11 kernel (kernel via genkernel with ramdisk)
The system is quite fast, passively cooled (the case fans are a little
noisy though) and like I said above fairly cheap.
If anyone jumps into the D525 Atom development, especially the kernel
config, please keep me in the loop.
73, JohnF
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
16 Mar
16 Mar
7:04 p.m.
New subject: directly routed subnets
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012, Bjorn Pehrson wrote:
OK, fine, at this stage everything should be possible.
I have found it hard
to get general peering agreements for anything less than /24 though. One
reason seems to be that there is still equipment out there that is not
CIDR-capable.
Anything doing BGP nowadays is CIDR capable. The main reason for
filtering anything longer than a /24 is to mitigate router table bloat.
--
Antonio Querubin
e-mail: tony(a)lavanauts.org
xmpp: antonioquerubin(a)gmail.com
11:20 a.m.
New subject: directly routed subnets
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 03:41:04PM +0100, Bjorn Pehrson wrote:
[...] there has to be
a crystal clear acceptable use policy (AUP) and an enforcement model
with acceptable sanctions if the AUP is broken.
Perhaps I should start collecting AUPs from various sources
rather than having to create one from scratch.
URLs to model AUPs would be appreciated.
- Brian
12:42 p.m.
New subject: directly routed subnets
On Mar 16, 2012, at 8:20 AM, Brian Kantor wrote:
Perhaps I should start collecting AUPs from various
sources
rather than having to create one from scratch.
URLs to model AUPs would be appreciated.
In concern of BGP peering...
You can see some of the hoops that ARIN requires for an ASN at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html
See section 5 <https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#five> for ASN requirements.
Certainly there are policies for peering that other ASNs. Some of these policies are good
to look at for requirements for announcing address space. Some of the requirements are a
bit onerous and don't apply. Comcast has their set of requirements at:
http://www.comcast.com/peering/
Certainly things like "Applicant must operate a US-wide IP backbone whose links are
primarily 10 Gbps or greater" should not be a requirement. But points like:
* Applicant must have a professionally managed 24x7 NOC and agree to repair or otherwise
remedy any problems within a reasonable timeframe. Applicant must also agree to actively
cooperate to resolve security incidents, denial of service attacks, and other operational
problems.
or
* Applicant must maintain responsive abuse contacts for reporting and dealing with UCE
(Unsolicited Commercial Email), technical contact information for capacity planning and
provisioning and administrative contacts for all legal notices.
may be a good idea. The latter one would be needed to help resolve poisoning of address
space and getting listed on various RBLs.
Other sites that have peering requirements can be seen at:
ATT - http://www.corp.att.com/peering/
Verizon - http://www.verizonbusiness.com/terms/peering/
AOL - http://www.atdn.net/settlement_free_int.shtml
MFN/Abovenet - http://www.above.net/peering/
If folks want can make a stab at a draft for requirements for someone announcing 44/8
space.
Tim
12:55 p.m.
New subject: directly routed subnets
There are different levels of peering.
The policies below describe tier 1/2 peering between the big guys. Most
peering relationships are not at that level.
Many small businesses have peering with more than one service provider.
It's quite common. The current startup I work for has a /24 that they
announce to their colo provider in San Francisco, as well as the ISP that
serves their HQ location further down the peninsula. (The colo and their HQ
are tied together as one ASN).
Michael
N6MEF
-----Original Message-----
From: 44net-bounces+n6mef=mefox.org(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
[mailto:44net-bounces+n6mef=mefox.org@hamradio.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Tim
Pozar
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 9:43 AM
To: AMPRNet working group
Subject: Re: [44net] directly routed subnets
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
On Mar 16, 2012, at 8:20 AM, Brian Kantor wrote:
Perhaps I should start collecting AUPs from various
sources rather
than having to create one from scratch.
URLs to model AUPs would be appreciated.
In concern of BGP peering...
You can see some of the hoops that ARIN requires for an ASN at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html
See section 5 <https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#five> for ASN
requirements.
Certainly there are policies for peering that other ASNs. Some of these
policies are good to look at for requirements for announcing address space.
Some of the requirements are a bit onerous and don't apply. Comcast has
their set of requirements at:
http://www.comcast.com/peering/
Certainly things like "Applicant must operate a US-wide IP backbone whose
links are primarily 10 Gbps or greater" should not be a requirement. But
points like:
* Applicant must have a professionally managed 24x7 NOC and agree to
repair or otherwise remedy any problems within a reasonable timeframe.
Applicant must also agree to actively cooperate to resolve security
incidents, denial of service attacks, and other operational problems.
or
* Applicant must maintain responsive abuse contacts for reporting
and dealing with UCE (Unsolicited Commercial Email), technical contact
information for capacity planning and provisioning and administrative
contacts for all legal notices.
may be a good idea. The latter one would be needed to help resolve
poisoning of address space and getting listed on various RBLs.
Other sites that have peering requirements can be seen at:
ATT - http://www.corp.att.com/peering/
Verizon - http://www.verizonbusiness.com/terms/peering/
AOL - http://www.atdn.net/settlement_free_int.shtml
MFN/Abovenet - http://www.above.net/peering/
If folks want can make a stab at a draft for requirements for someone
announcing 44/8 space.
Tim
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
2:32 p.m.
New subject: directly routed subnets
My understanding from Cogent (our upstream provider) is we provide them
with a letter from ARDC allowing us to advertise the sub net to the other
AS machines around the world. They put the sub net in their AS then magic
of the Internet it routs to our server/users. I am not a Computer Science
major or person so I am just learing how things work up stream from the
ISPs. So correct me if I am wrong.
Tim the reason for not doing IP tunnels is easy. Single point of failure.
God forbid SCSD drops in to the ocean (not really but lets just say the big
one hits SoCal) all of AMPR is down.
Lin
2:44 p.m.
New subject: directly routed subnets
On Mar 16, 2012, at 11:32 AM, Lin Holcomb wrote:
My understanding from Cogent (our upstream provider)
is we provide them with a letter from ARDC allowing us to advertise the sub net to the
other AS machines around the world. They put the sub net in their AS then magic of the
Internet it routs to our server/users. I am not a Computer Science major or person so I
am just learing how things work up stream from the ISPs. So correct me if I am wrong.
Tim the reason for not doing IP tunnels is easy. Single point of failure. God forbid
SCSD drops in to the ocean (not really but lets just say the big one hits SoCal) all of
AMPR is down.
Of course. If you check out my previous email and were a fly on the wall when I phoned
Brian some months back, I have always been a proponent of having 44 address space being
announced at other places beyond UCSD for all the reasons we have chatted about.
As for announing the some prefix of 44/8, good to see your upstream asking for some
authority before they would pass that announcement. It definitely needs to be a
requirement that it comes from ARDC and shows the prefix. It should also be some
requirement that this shows up in a Routing Registries (ie. Altdb, Radb, etc.)
Tim
3:19 p.m.
New subject: directly routed subnets
Greetings,
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012, Lin Holcomb wrote:
My understanding from Cogent (our upstream provider)
is we provide them
with a letter from ARDC allowing us to advertise the sub net to the
other AS machines around the world. They put the sub net in their AS
then magic of the Internet it routs to our server/users. I am not a
Computer Science major or person so I am just learing how things work up
stream from the ISPs. So correct me if I am wrong.
That is basically it. So long as any of the Teir-1 backbones honor the
more specific 44.102/16 route announcements (using 44.102/16 as an example
as that is my State network here in Michigan).
Tim the reason for not doing IP tunnels is easy.
Single point of
failure. God forbid SCSD drops in to the ocean (not really but lets just
say the big one hits SoCal) all of AMPR is down.
IPIP Protocol-4 tunnels are absolutely fine - so long as you are NOT
tunneling directly to Mirrorshades/AMPRgw. If *every* Internet attached
node in your network contains the ENCAP route table, then they each will
know which nodes support which subnets and can route the traffic DIRECTLY
to them. There is *NO* single point of failure because this method
provides you with a FULLY MESHED network. It is quite easy and VERY
elegant, really :)
Passing *ANY* traffic through Mirrorshades/AMPRgw, as *I* see it, is to
catch 'stray' packets destined from the Internet headed toward a 44/8
address. Since the Michigan AMPRnet *DOES NOT ALLOW* any direct Internet
to 44-net traffic, then whatever happens to the West coast slipping into
the ocean will not effect us here (sorry Brian, hope you have your SCUBA
gear on! HI HI). The Michigan AMPRnet will hum along quite nicely :)
But for those folk who *DO* accept 44 traffic from the Internet (and
all the firewall and filtering that requires), I am all in favor of
splitting off more specific BGP announcements to the big-I Internet route
tables. Just be aware that peering agreements are oftentimes NOT free.
Oftentimes require and equal sharing in traffic, both inbound and outbound
(if they are paying to give you a port on their box, they wanna be sure it
is adventagious to *their* customers). And you will need to formulate
MANY peering agreements to make it worthwhile. This is NOT as simple as
setting up dual upstreams from one "company" location. You are talking
about dividing the 44/8 space into subnets that each get routed/peered
through different backbone providers and networks. This can get sticky...
Good luck! And I enjoy the discussion :)
--- Jay Nugent WB8TKL
o Served my penance at Advanced Network & Services (ANS) and
working in the NOC during the T1 NSFnet and T3 NSFnet days.
(I think we were sucessfull in our NSF goal to commercialize
the Internet - BIG GRIN)
() ascii ribbon campaign in
/\ support of plain text e-mail
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Jay Nugent jjn(a)nuge.com (734)484-5105 (734)649-0850/Cell |
| Nugent Telecommunications [www.nuge.com] |
| Internet Consulting/Linux SysAdmin/Engineering & Design/ISP Reseller |
| ISP Monitoring [www.ispmonitor.org] ISP & Modem Performance Monitoring |
| Web-Pegasus [www.webpegasus.com] Web Hosting/DNS Hosting/Shell Accts|
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
14:01:01 up 193 days, 19:39, 3 users, load average: 0.03, 0.04, 0.00
My understanding from Cogent (our upstream provider) is we provide them
with a letter from ARDC allowing us to advertise the sub net to the other
AS machines around the world. They put the sub net in their AS then magic
of the Internet it routs to our server/users. I am not a Computer Science
major or person so I am just learing how things work up stream from the
ISPs. So correct me if I am wrong.
Tim the reason for not doing IP tunnels is easy. Single point of failure.
God forbid SCSD drops in to the ocean (not really but lets just say the big
one hits SoCal) all of AMPR is down.
Lin
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
1:31 p.m.
New subject: directly routed subnets
On 2012-03-16 16:20, Brian Kantor wrote:
URLs to model AUPs would be appreciated.
- Brian
_________________________________________
A site discussing the AUPs of Ham radio is available at
www.ham-operating-ethics.org/
You can find a list of AUPs för National Research and Education Networks
(NRENs) at
www.terena.org/activities/compendium/2006/lists/aup.php
There are some African networks that are not in this list that you can
find of their webistes, nine of which you can find in the lower left
margin at www.ubuntunet.net
2:58 p.m.
New subject: directly routed subnets
If we can do it as a group that would be great. I
dont want to nag them
with one or two at a time and wear our our welcome we can start another
thread for a group buy if that is OK with Brian or we can go off list
what ever. I will be going to DE next week does anyone know the German
Hamnet guys? (or are they on the list) I want to take a look at waht
they are doing.
Which town are you going to visit? If you visit Berlin or Munich I'm
pretty sure you can meet Thomas, DL9SAU (Berlin) or me in Munich. We are
both from the DL-IP coordination team.
73,
Jann
--
Jann Traschewski, Georgenschwaigstr. 10, D-80807 Munich, Germany
Tel.: +49-911-696971, Mobile: +49-170-1045937, E-Mail: jann(a)gmx.de
Ham: DG8NGN / DB0VOX, http://www.qsl.net/dg8ngn
1:28 p.m.
New subject: directly routed subnets
I'd like to see that report. As I don't have and personal experience with the
Ubiquity equipment, any "real world" data would be very helpful.
----- Original Message -----
From: Bjorn Pehrson [mailto:bpehrson@kth.se]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 05:20 AM
To: AMPRNet working group <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu>
Subject: Re: [44net] directly routed subnets
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
We have tested bsome of those ubiquiti links in our African projects
where we support the deployment of university networks. I can share a
1.3MB PDF report of the tests if anyone is interested. I would also be
interested in procurement details.
On 2012-03-16 09:00, Dan Jameyson wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
I've looked at those ubiquiti radios -- like the nanostations and rockets. I'd be
interested in some of the 97-able ones.
-----Original Message-----
From: 44net-bounces+dsjameyson=dan247.com(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
[mailto:44net-bounces+dsjameyson=dan247.com@hamradio.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Lin Holcomb
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 2:46 PM
To: AMPRNet working group
Subject: Re: [44net] directly routed subnets
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
Lynwood and others.
actually we do have carrier class equipment for HRMM. Ubiquiti makes very nice 2.4, 3.4
and 5ghz radios. look on eBay. the one catch for part 97 only frequencies you must have
acces to the international models. These allow setup outside the part 15 bands. Oh your
thinking I will have a hard time getting a hold of these. Nope we have access to all you
want at cost +shipping and packaging costs.
Lin
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
1:41 p.m.
New subject: directly routed subnets
Since it is too big for the list, I sent it directly to your email address.
On 2012-03-16 18:28, Dan Jameyson wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
I'd like to see that report. As I don't have and personal experience with the
Ubiquity equipment, any "real world" data would be very helpful.
----- Original Message -----
From: Bjorn Pehrson [mailto:bpehrson@kth.se]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 05:20 AM
To: AMPRNet working group<44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu>
Subject: Re: [44net] directly routed subnets
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
We have tested bsome of those ubiquiti links in our African projects
where we support the deployment of university networks. I can share a
1.3MB PDF report of the tests if anyone is interested. I would also be
interested in procurement details.
On 2012-03-16 09:00, Dan Jameyson wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
I've looked at those ubiquiti radios -- like the nanostations and rockets. I'd be
interested in some of the 97-able ones.
-----Original Message-----
From: 44net-bounces+dsjameyson=dan247.com(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
[mailto:44net-bounces+dsjameyson=dan247.com@hamradio.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Lin Holcomb
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 2:46 PM
To: AMPRNet working group
Subject: Re: [44net] directly routed subnets
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
Lynwood and others.
actually we do have carrier class equipment for HRMM. Ubiquiti makes very nice 2.4, 3.4
and 5ghz radios. look on eBay. the one catch for part 97 only frequencies you must have
acces to the international models. These allow setup outside the part 15 bands. Oh your
thinking I will have a hard time getting a hold of these. Nope we have access to all you
want at cost +shipping and packaging costs.
Lin
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
.
4444
days inactive
4448
days old
28 comments
15 participants
participants (15)
-
Antonio Querubin -
Bjorn Pehrson -
Brian Kantor -
Dan Jameyson -
Elias V. Basse III -
Jann Traschewski -
Jay Nugent -
John Feist -
John Ronan -
K7VE - John -
Lin Holcomb -
Lin Holcomb -
lleachii＠aol.com -
Michael Fox - N6MEF -
Tim Pozar