If you have a 44net subnet behind your router, machines that do not have DNS entries at ampr.org will not be able to reach BGPed networks, because amprgw requires any host passing traffic through it must have such a DNS entry.
At the moment, simply removing the default route in your ampr table solves this and routes those hosts vis ISP NAT.
By automatically creating individual routes for BGP subnets make this a little more diffcult, and breaks existing working setups. Even if this is not a big issue for people with good networking knowledge, it breaks things for those that should
have expected a simpler setup and are not profficient in networking, contrary to the initial goal of the proposal.
I think it is a little broader than this. When you have a BGP routed subnet yourself, and you run ampr-ripd in parallel to improve connectivity to IPIP-only subnets, you force the traffic to other BGP routed subnets via amprgw where they would much more efficiently be routed directly. (without NAT)
Of course a special version of ampr-ripd could be made that ignores those routes when some flag is given. You could release such a version and advertise its existence here, give everyone involved the opportunity to install it, and only then make the change.
Rob
Yes, I agree as I prefer to route those directly instead of adding 7000 km round-trip over San Diego to those from here.
Bob VE3TOK
On 2019-03-12 3:09 p.m., Rob Janssen wrote:
Of course a special version of ampr-ripd could be made that ignores those routes when some flag is given. You could release such a version and advertise its existence here, give everyone involved the opportunity to install it, and only then make the change.
On 13/03/19 08:20, Boudewijn (Bob) Tenty via 44Net wrote:
Yes, I agree as I prefer to route those directly instead of adding 7000 km round-trip over San Diego to those from here.
Agree, though in my case, it's nearer a 30000 km round trip, and I have a BGP routed subnet that's only 150km from me. If I want a NAT free route, I'll simply setup a VPN directly between my tunneled subnet and the BGP routed one.
Definitely for reduced latency, though a trip to San Diego sounds really right now. Three inches (~7.5cm) of new snow today.
Thanks to all for making this a friendly and *educational* forum. I'm still a networking newbie, but 44net is really allowing me to grasp this.
While keeping it simple is fine, having opportunities for learning is better.
Thanks again all.
-Pat K7IBC (DN06je)
On 3/12/2019 2:20 PM, Boudewijn (Bob) Tenty via 44Net wrote:
Yes, I agree as I prefer to route those directly instead of adding 7000 km round-trip over San Diego to those from here.
Bob VE3TOK
On 2019-03-12 3:09 p.m., Rob Janssen wrote:
Of course a special version of ampr-ripd could be made that ignores those routes when some flag is given. You could release such a version and advertise its existence here, give everyone involved the opportunity to install it, and only then make the change.
Dont want to brag but I had 1.5 foot of snow last sunday, on top of the 5 foot that was still left from this long winter.
And today we had 35-36 degree so some melted.. But not enough to my taste..
And I agree with you. I am a real noob in networking, but I am here to learn.. (just like the russian said when they came to play hockey in 1971 ;-) )
Only a canuck or a rusky will understand that one!
Pierre VE2PF
________________________________ De : 44Net 44net-bounces+petem001=hotmail.com@mailman.ampr.org de la part de Pat K7IBC via 44Net 44net@mailman.ampr.org Envoyé : 12 mars 2019 18:30 À : Boudewijn (Bob) Tenty via 44Net Cc : Pat K7IBC Objet : Re: [44net] BGP routes in RIP transmissions -- CANCELLED
Definitely for reduced latency, though a trip to San Diego sounds really right now. Three inches (~7.5cm) of new snow today.
Thanks to all for making this a friendly and *educational* forum. I'm still a networking newbie, but 44net is really allowing me to grasp this.
While keeping it simple is fine, having opportunities for learning is better.
Thanks again all.
-Pat K7IBC (DN06je)
On 3/12/2019 2:20 PM, Boudewijn (Bob) Tenty via 44Net wrote:
Yes, I agree as I prefer to route those directly instead of adding 7000 km round-trip over San Diego to those from here.
Bob VE3TOK
On 2019-03-12 3:09 p.m., Rob Janssen wrote:
Of course a special version of ampr-ripd could be made that ignores those routes when some flag is given. You could release such a version and advertise its existence here, give everyone involved the opportunity to install it, and only then make the change.
_________________________________________ 44Net mailing list 44Net@mailman.ampr.org https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
[https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animat...]https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail Garanti sans virus. www.avast.comhttps://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
Still have about a foot and a half here. Send some of that 36 degree "heatwave" this way, would ya? :-)
My mum was a Newfie. She rolled her eyes whenever *that* topic came up.
-Pat K7IBC (DN06je)
On 3/12/2019 3:43 PM, pete M via 44Net wrote:
Dont want to brag but I had 1.5 foot of snow last sunday, on top of the 5 foot that was still left from this long winter.
And today we had 35-36 degree so some melted.. But not enough to my taste..
And I agree with you. I am a real noob in networking, but I am here to learn.. (just like the russian said when they came to play hockey in 1971 ;-) )
Only a canuck or a rusky will understand that one!
Pierre VE2PF
De : 44Net 44net-bounces+petem001=hotmail.com@mailman.ampr.org de la part de Pat K7IBC via 44Net 44net@mailman.ampr.org Envoyé : 12 mars 2019 18:30 À : Boudewijn (Bob) Tenty via 44Net Cc : Pat K7IBC Objet : Re: [44net] BGP routes in RIP transmissions -- CANCELLED
Definitely for reduced latency, though a trip to San Diego sounds really right now. Three inches (~7.5cm) of new snow today.
Thanks to all for making this a friendly and *educational* forum. I'm still a networking newbie, but 44net is really allowing me to grasp this.
While keeping it simple is fine, having opportunities for learning is better.
Thanks again all.
-Pat K7IBC (DN06je)
On 3/12/2019 2:20 PM, Boudewijn (Bob) Tenty via 44Net wrote:
Yes, I agree as I prefer to route those directly instead of adding 7000 km round-trip over San Diego to those from here.
Bob VE3TOK
On 2019-03-12 3:09 p.m., Rob Janssen wrote:
Of course a special version of ampr-ripd could be made that ignores those routes when some flag is given. You could release such a version and advertise its existence here, give everyone involved the opportunity to install it, and only then make the change.
44Net mailing list 44Net@mailman.ampr.org https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
[https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animat...]https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail Garanti sans virus. www.avast.comhttps://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail _________________________________________ 44Net mailing list 44Net@mailman.ampr.org https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
Thats 36 F not 36 C. I can translate it all to the metric system 😉
Got 45 cm last Sunday, ont top of the 1.50 meter that is left from this winter snow, and to day some melted cause we had sun and 1-2 degre celcius..
😊
Provenance : Courrierhttps://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986 pour Windows 10
________________________________ De : 44Net 44net-bounces+petem001=hotmail.com@mailman.ampr.org de la part de Pat K7IBC via 44Net 44net@mailman.ampr.org Envoyé : Tuesday, March 12, 2019 7:51:27 PM À : pete M via 44Net Cc : Pat K7IBC Objet : Re: [44net] BGP routes in RIP transmissions -- CANCELLED
Still have about a foot and a half here. Send some of that 36 degree "heatwave" this way, would ya? :-)
My mum was a Newfie. She rolled her eyes whenever *that* topic came up.
-Pat K7IBC (DN06je)
On 3/12/2019 3:43 PM, pete M via 44Net wrote:
Dont want to brag but I had 1.5 foot of snow last sunday, on top of the 5 foot that was still left from this long winter.
And today we had 35-36 degree so some melted.. But not enough to my taste..
And I agree with you. I am a real noob in networking, but I am here to learn.. (just like the russian said when they came to play hockey in 1971 ;-) )
Only a canuck or a rusky will understand that one!
Pierre VE2PF
De : 44Net 44net-bounces+petem001=hotmail.com@mailman.ampr.org de la part de Pat K7IBC via 44Net 44net@mailman.ampr.org Envoyé : 12 mars 2019 18:30 À : Boudewijn (Bob) Tenty via 44Net Cc : Pat K7IBC Objet : Re: [44net] BGP routes in RIP transmissions -- CANCELLED
Definitely for reduced latency, though a trip to San Diego sounds really right now. Three inches (~7.5cm) of new snow today.
Thanks to all for making this a friendly and *educational* forum. I'm still a networking newbie, but 44net is really allowing me to grasp this.
While keeping it simple is fine, having opportunities for learning is better.
Thanks again all.
-Pat K7IBC (DN06je)
On 3/12/2019 2:20 PM, Boudewijn (Bob) Tenty via 44Net wrote:
Yes, I agree as I prefer to route those directly instead of adding 7000 km round-trip over San Diego to those from here.
Bob VE3TOK
On 2019-03-12 3:09 p.m., Rob Janssen wrote:
Of course a special version of ampr-ripd could be made that ignores those routes when some flag is given. You could release such a version and advertise its existence here, give everyone involved the opportunity to install it, and only then make the change.
44Net mailing list 44Net@mailman.ampr.org https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
[https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animat...]https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail Garanti sans virus. www.avast.comhttps://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail _________________________________________ 44Net mailing list 44Net@mailman.ampr.org https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
_________________________________________ 44Net mailing list 44Net@mailman.ampr.org https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
On 13/03/19 10:55, pete M via 44Net wrote:
Thats 36 F not 36 C. I can translate it all to the metric system 😉
Got 45 cm last Sunday, ont top of the 1.50 meter that is left from this winter snow, and to day some melted cause we had sun and 1-2 degre celcius..
What's this "snow" thing? And can it be routed over the 44 net? ;P
Oh how I wish we could !! Our snow here in N.S. is nicely layered with solid ice, making it nearly impossible to shovel..
On 2019-03-13 12:07 a.m., Tony Langdon wrote:
On 13/03/19 10:55, pete M via 44Net wrote:
Thats 36 F not 36 C. I can translate it all to the metric system 😉
Got 45 cm last Sunday, ont top of the 1.50 meter that is left from this winter snow, and to day some melted cause we had sun and 1-2 degre celcius..
What's this "snow" thing? And can it be routed over the 44 net? ;P
Hi,
Le 12/03/2019 à 20:09, Rob Janssen a écrit :
When you have a BGP routed subnet yourself, and you run ampr-ripd in parallel to improve connectivity to IPIP-only subnets, you force the traffic to other BGP routed subnets via amprgw where they would much more efficiently be routed directly.
I'm planning to start deployment of our 44.190.11.0/24 BGP-routed subnet. In the first phase, this subnet will host only Internet-related stuff (XLX, DMR, Echolink, public WEB server). I don't plan to install ampr-ripd in parallel (at least for now, in order to make things simpler and more step-by-step).
Those machines will only need to talk with other machines on public Internet (ie, other XLX servers). I don't want to use dual-adressing for XLX (ie, one AMPRNet IP and one "standard" IP with NAT). I'd like to use only one 44.190 AMPRNet IP for XLX/DMR.
Nobody here is using ampr-ripd. Local clients and sites are connected to our DC through our TKNet VPNs (basically, Hub-and-Spoke OpenVPN tunnels running on tiny OpenWRT boxes, with dynamic endpoint IP support, which have the big advantage of being totally Plug and Play). Our old VPN setup uses private addressing (10.0.0.0), but we planned to migrate to AMPRNet adressing, on a separate subnet, different from the 44.190 (ie, 44.168)
In such a setup : - May I encounter routing issues with some clients ? - Is it recommended to deploy ampr-ripd in parallel with BGP ?
Thank you in advance for your answers and comments,
73 de TK1BI
-
Boudewijn (Bob) Tenty -
jj -
Pat K7IBC -
pete M -
pete M -
Rob Janssen -
Tony Langdon -
Toussaint OTTAVI