Subject: Re: [44net] Strange Broadcasts... From: Bryan Fields Bryan@bryanfields.net Date: 06/13/2015 11:59 PM
To: AMPRNet working group 44net@hamradio.ucsd.edu
On 6/13/15 4:05 PM, Don Fanning wrote:
IPIP would also get the benefit of possibly routing EIGRP between IPIP mesh sites so that if one BGP route were to have catastrophic failure, another BGP announced route would already be announced and EIGRP would route to that end point.
This is a joke, correct?
You're proposing fixing broken routing using a non-standard protocol. IIRC EIGRP uses IP multicast for announcements (same as OSPF) so you'd need to run it over some sort of tunnel (gre) interface anyways.
Just use BGP with a private AS up to the edge Internet connected BGP nodes if you're building tunnels.
Tim Osburn and myself (and others) had proposed standards based way to move the IPIP tunnels to a redundant gateway design a few years back. It's not hard, but there is no movement from ARDC to actually move forward with it. I'd be happy with a study of proposed ideas, at least it's forward movement.
Your problem is that you want to try to talk us into believing that we have a problem with reliability, while for most of us it is clear that we first and foremost have a problem with existance. The amateur digital network is nearly dead, we are trying to revive it and make it thrive like it did in the early days, a network built and operated by hobbyists, and you are continuously trying to impress us with your knowledge about professional networks and your concerns about failure modes.
Furthermore, you try to enforce your ideas by criticizing the efforts of volunteers and trying to do a coup d'etat. It does not work that way. When you have a real improvement to introduce you should demonstrate how to do it in a way compatible to what others are doing, and understanding.
What I find a joke is that you are concerned about having a single point of failure, and then roll out a solution that does not work *at all* under some static circumstances. Better have a single point of failure in a network that works most of the time, than a network that never works OK. (some pure theorist may disagree with that and claim that something that never works is more reliable that something that works 99.9% of the time, but I am not in that camp)
Rob
On 6/14/15 3:35 PM, Rob Janssen wrote:
Your problem is that you want to try to talk us into believing that we have a problem with reliability, while for most of us it is clear that we first and foremost have a problem with existance. The amateur digital network is nearly dead, we are trying to revive it and make it thrive like it did in the early days, a network built and operated by hobbyists, and you are continuously trying to impress us with your knowledge about professional networks and your concerns about failure modes.
Rob, take a chill pill.
Take a look at the HamWAN, HAMNET, and what I'm doing here in the bay area. It's very much alive, and we're educating people about high-speed ham packet networks everyday. I had over 200 people at the TAPR forum at Dayton this year for my talk.
Furthermore, you try to enforce your ideas by criticizing the efforts of volunteers and trying to do a coup d'etat. It does not work that way. When you have a real improvement to introduce you should demonstrate how to do it in a way compatible to what others are doing, and understanding.
I've used well reasoned logic to back up my ideas. I've not criticized anyone, simply their theories and operational model. This is how debate works.
I'm not doing a "coup d'etat" as you say by arguing that ARDC must be a members driven organization. Do you disagree with this?
73s
-
Bryan Fields -
Rob Janssen