30 Mar
2013
30 Mar
'13
12:29 a.m.
I know this is fine in regular IP routing, but is it o.k. with the AMPRgw?
I have a gateway that serves a /28 address space.
I'd like to do some testing using a couple of the addresses in that space on
a different gateway.
So, I'd like to add another gateway entry for just those two addresses
without modifying the existing gateway entry for the /28.
Regular IP longest match should prefer the /32 matches for the new gateway
over the longer /28 match for the existing gateway.
But before I implement, I wanted to verify whether or not this would be o.k.
with the portal database, the amprgw RIP routing mechanism, etc.
BTW, this would be a nice, generalized solution for a backup gateway. That
is, if the more specific route goes away, the more general route could be
used.
So, is this o.k. to do or not? If not, why not?
Thanks much,
Michael
N6MEF
30 Mar
30 Mar
1:59 a.m.
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 10:29:31AM -0700, Michael Fox - N6MEF wrote:
I know this is fine in regular IP routing, but is it
o.k. with the AMPRgw?
Should be. When routing, the narrowest match is supposed to be found first,
so it should work. Give it a try and we'll see.
- Brian
2:13 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 29/03/2013 19:59, Brian Kantor wrote:
Should be. When routing, the narrowest match is
supposed to be
found first, so it should work. Give it a try and we'll see.
As far as I can tell it works.
There is a route 44.161.0.0/16 for LX, but I have been experimenting
with longer (more specific) prefixes (44.161.229.0/25,
44.161.202.0/24, 44.161.203.0/24) and it works fine (so far) within
the IPIP mesh.
The only thing you might need to test is connectivity from the network
with the shorter prefix towards the network with the longer prefix.
The gateway with the covering (shorter) prefix might be configured to
handle this traffic locally instead of forwarding it via the IPIP mesh
or a direct interconnect or ...
You may also want to handle the occasional packet arriving at the
wrong gateway and forward it to the other gateway.
73 de Marc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/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=YBum
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
3:04 a.m.
Yup, good point. I might have missed that. Thanks.
-----Original Message-----
From: 44net-bounces+n6mef=mefox.org(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
[mailto:44net-bounces+n6mef=mefox.org@hamradio.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Marc,
LX1DUC
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 12:13 PM
To: 44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
Subject: Re: [44net] Overlapping gateway subnets
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 29/03/2013 19:59, Brian Kantor wrote:
Should be. When routing, the narrowest match is
supposed to be found
first, so it should work. Give it a try and we'll see.
As far as I can tell it works.
There is a route 44.161.0.0/16 for LX, but I have been experimenting with
longer (more specific) prefixes (44.161.229.0/25, 44.161.202.0/24,
44.161.203.0/24) and it works fine (so far) within the IPIP mesh.
The only thing you might need to test is connectivity from the network with
the shorter prefix towards the network with the longer prefix.
The gateway with the covering (shorter) prefix might be configured to handle
this traffic locally instead of forwarding it via the IPIP mesh or a direct
interconnect or ...
You may also want to handle the occasional packet arriving at the wrong
gateway and forward it to the other gateway.
73 de Marc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/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=YBum
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
http://www.ampr.org/donate.html
10:53 a.m.
Hi,
There is a route 44.161.0.0/16 for LX, but I have been
experimenting
with longer (more specific) prefixes (44.161.229.0/25,
44.161.202.0/24, 44.161.203.0/24) and it works fine (so far) within
the IPIP mesh.
That's me. Try to ping "lx0net.ampr.org" and "lx0ist-2.ampr.org".
The only thing you might need to test is connectivity
from the network
with the shorter prefix towards the network with the longer prefix.
Should be fine.
The gateway with the covering (shorter) prefix might
be configured to
handle this traffic locally instead of forwarding it via the IPIP mesh
or a direct interconnect or ...
ack
73,
Jann
A4/DG8NGN
3:04 a.m.
o.k. thanks.
-----Original Message-----
From: 44net-bounces+n6mef=mefox.org(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
[mailto:44net-bounces+n6mef=mefox.org@hamradio.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Brian
Kantor
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 11:59 AM
To: AMPRNet working group
Subject: Re: [44net] Overlapping gateway subnets
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 10:29:31AM -0700, Michael Fox - N6MEF wrote:
I know this is fine in regular IP routing, but is it
o.k. with the AMPRgw?
Should be. When routing, the narrowest match is supposed to be found first,
so it should work. Give it a try and we'll see.
- Brian
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
http://www.ampr.org/donate.html
4285
days inactive
4286
days old
5 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Brian Kantor -
Jann Traschewski -
Marc, LX1DUC -
Michael Fox - N6MEF