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
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
-----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
Yup, good point. I might have missed that. Thanks.
-----Original Message----- From: 44net-bounces+n6mef=mefox.org@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@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
_________________________________________ 44Net mailing list 44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net http://www.ampr.org/donate.html
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
o.k. thanks.
-----Original Message----- From: 44net-bounces+n6mef=mefox.org@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@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net http://www.ampr.org/donate.html
-
Brian Kantor -
Jann Traschewski -
Marc, LX1DUC -
Michael Fox - N6MEF