19 Jun
2015
19 Jun
'15
4:43 p.m.
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
19 Jun
19 Jun
9:10 p.m.
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Michael E Fox (N6MEF) <n6mef(a)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
20 Jun
20 Jun
2:38 p.m.
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
3235
days inactive
3236
days old
2 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Cory (NQ1E) -
Gustavo Ponza -
Michael E Fox (N6MEF)