So is the architectural debate over, or are people just tired of arguing?
Frankly, there's been so much back and forth that I don't know what's expected any more. As I understand it, some nodes are on the IPIP mesh, some not. Some are reachable through amprgw, some not. What a mess.
If the debate is over and there is consensus on a standard gateway architecture, then someone needs to publish it.
I'm thinking the design should include a diagram of how to address the interfaces (which tunnels need AMPR addresses, which don't), where NATing occurs, what the ampr routing table should look like, what the ip rules should look like, etc.
Otherwise, I guess it's up to each individual person to parse through the last 100 or so emails to figure out what they're going to do. Maybe I'll find time to do that . Someday. And folks wonder why there's not more participation .
Michael
N6MEF
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Michael E Fox (N6MEF) n6mef@mefox.org wrote:
If the debate is over and there is consensus on a standard gateway architecture, then someone needs to publish it.
Hi Michael,
The debate will likely never end on this mailing list ;)
We don't have a consensus. However, from my point of view, I think we have a better understanding of the issues and what the impacts of specific choices are.
What I would like to see is documentation that shows someone how to get started and setup their network in a way that at-least doesn't negatively impact others. From there they can be given several options for how to configure the network to match their goals as well as describing the advantages and disadvantages of each choice.
There really us no right or wrong way to configure your network because everyone has different goals. As most of us are also experimenters, those goals will vary greatly which makes consensus nearly impossible. Without such a consensus, it will be very difficult for us to get into a state where everyone in our IP space is reachable by everyone else. In fact, some peoples' goals probably prohibit that. So I don't think we should let ourselves get rabbit-holed with the idea of universal connectivity unless we find a good reason to do so.
I've been trying to keep decent notes on the different variations I've seen so far so I can help contribute to the documentation I just mentioned. However, I can't make those changes until I've at-least tested them on my own infrastructure first.
Otherwise, I guess it's up to each individual person to parse through the last 100 or so emails to figure out what they're going to do.
I don't think anyone wants that.
Maybe I'll find time to do that . Someday. And folks wonder why there's not more participation .
I think we're all in the same boat there. This isn't our day job, so we only contribute what we can. I would encourage you and everyone else to do that same of course. :)
-Cory NQ1E
Hi,
Frankly, there's been so much back and forth that I don't know what's expected any more. As I understand it, some nodes are on the IPIP mesh, some not. Some are reachable through amprgw, some not. What a mess.
If the debate is over and there is consensus on a standard gateway architecture, then someone needs to publish it.
+1 ; on the light of the new 'portal.ampr.org' how should be the 'standard' for an amprnet gateway?
I'm thinking the design should include a diagram of how to address the interfaces (which tunnels need AMPR addresses, which don't), where NATing occurs, what the ampr routing table should look like, what the ip rules should look like, etc.
Furthermore, since the 'ampr-ripd' server is the 'de facto' standard mean to accomplish the basic IPIP job, is it possible to get it configurable by filling the option data to join the hamwan.org and other unreachable BGP announced networks?
73, gus i0ojj
-
Cory (NQ1E) -
Gustavo Ponza -
Michael E Fox (N6MEF)