Bill, WA7NWP,
I'm not sure this is best suggestion for many reasons:
- There was a discussion a few weeks back where it was determined that all stations do not necessarily run telnet (while having others test connectivity to my station, some were attempting to telnet to me). For example, my station is not a TNOS/JNOS based router, and therefore does not provide Converse (the telnet-based service we're referring to) by default. Under that guideline, my allocation would be purged.
- We also determined that, while all stations should make their IP addresses ping-able, that was not necessarily the case (either by intent or error).
- For various reasons, AMPRNet allocations may not necessarily be online or available through AMPR
- A Station does not necessarily have to download the encap to have a working allocation (one could manually add static routes from the portal list or use RIP44, for example)
- It would be impossible to use the download guideline for those using the RIP44 routing protocol, as it is multicast; and doesn't know what stations are receiving it or using it
We have to be mindful that all stations may not be identically configured, use the same Operating Systems, routing protocols nor system configurations to accomplish connectivity to AMPRNet.
73,
Lynwood KB3VWG
On 03/12/2013 03:00 PM, 44net-request@hamradio.ucsd.edu wrote:
Automate it for now and the future... If a client doesn't ping/poke/telnet/download or whatever within 30days/3months/whatever - purge the entry. You know - just like DHCP but at a higher level.. :)
Bill, WA7NWP
lleachii@aol.com wrote:
... We have to be mindful that all stations may not be identically configured, use the same Operating Systems, routing protocols nor system configurations to accomplish connectivity to AMPRNet.
On 03/12/2013 03:00 PM, 44net-request@hamradio.ucsd.edu wrote:
Automate it for now and the future... If a client doesn't ping/poke/telnet/download or whatever within 30days/3months/whatever purge the entry. You know - just like DHCP but at a higher level.. :)
Bill, WA7NWP
My belief is that systems connected to the Internet should respond to ICMP Echo Requests, it is/was in the Host Requirements RFC I think. It's also so useful in an experimental network that I would not want to turn it off.
On the other hand, I strongly believe that allocation of static IP addresses should not *automatically* depend on whether a system is switched on 24/7, nor on whether the system responds to a ping. Static addresses need to be managed manually.
If address space is scarce, allocate it dynamically. That's what DHCP is for.
Best wishes and thanks to all who keep AMPRnet alive!
G4WSZ
Steve,
I agree with you about echo requests, to a point. But the host requirements were written back when a username and password were sufficient for security. (I remember the good-ol' days of the NSFnet in the early 80's). In those days, a "firewall" was something made from approved flame-retardant materials.
Today, IT managers routinely spend more time fighting spam and hackers than doing anything else. I know the time I've spent on iptables and postfix rules never fails to remind me of how sad it is that I have to spend any time at all on them. So in the corporate world, it is common for key servers to NOT respond to pings.
I did a test with my gateway when I first put it up. I had it running for a month or so without accepting pings from the Internet. As soon as I allowed pings, a variety of attacks began, all within a day or so. Luckily, none were successful.
My solution was to allow pings from within AMPRnet, but not from external "commercial" Internet machines. That makes it helpful for experimentation and testing within our ham community, but reduces visibility to the outside. The problem with that approach is that it requires a bit more care and configuration knowledge in iptables or whatever firewall solution someone has in place. For many, that's either something that is too much to deal with or something they try to do but aren't quite able to get the configuration right.
Bottom line, I think it would be a mistake to rely on ICMP echo requests/response for proof that a gateway is there or not. Our local repeater coordinating body requires coordination holders to update their record once every two years (or maybe it's three years). It's as simple as logging in and clicking a button indicating that their information is current. The database sends automated reminder emails when the update is due. It has worked well for many years and is not onerous for the administrative/system staff or the repeater owners. Something similar seems like the way to go.
Michael N6MEF
-----Original Message----- From: 44net-bounces+n6mef=mefox.org@hamradio.ucsd.edu [mailto:44net-bounces+n6mef=mefox.org@hamradio.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Steve Platt Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 2:25 AM To: AMPRNet working group Subject: Re: [44net] Portal registrations
My belief is that systems connected to the Internet should respond to ICMP Echo Requests, it is/was in the Host Requirements RFC I think. It's also so useful in an experimental network that I would not want to turn it off.
On the other hand, I strongly believe that allocation of static IP addresses should not *automatically* depend on whether a system is switched on 24/7, nor on whether the system responds to a ping. Static addresses need to be managed manually.
If address space is scarce, allocate it dynamically. That's what DHCP is for.
Best wishes and thanks to all who keep AMPRnet alive!
G4WSZ -- Steve Platt
Bottom line, I think it would be a mistake to rely on ICMP echo requests/response for proof that a gateway is there or not. Our local repeater coordinating body requires coordination holders to update their record once every two years (or maybe it's three years). It's as simple as logging in and clicking a button indicating that their information is current. The database sends automated reminder emails when the update is due. It has worked well for many years and is not onerous for the administrative/system staff or the repeater owners. Something similar seems like the way to go.
This is indeed how the portal currently works.
Chris
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 2:25 AM, Steve Platt steve.platt@ntlworld.comwrote:
If address space is scarce, allocate it dynamically. That's what DHCP is for.
Another use case for DHCP is mobile operation. As a station moves from gateway to gateway DHCP (with Dynamic DNS) makes routing much simpler.
Also remember, not all Net-44 traffic will be travelling via AX.25. For example D-STAR DD sends encapsulated Ethernet packets over the air interface so DHCP works quite simply. (At least using ircDDBGateway implementation.)
------------------------------ John D. Hays K7VE PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223 http://k7ve.org/blog http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays http://www.facebook.com/john.d.hays
Steve,
I agree with your suggestion, I was simply making note that all hosts are not TNOS/JNOS based (therefore Telnet is not the best option), and that there is no simple way to determine if an allocated IP is not in use, or happened to simply be offline to the Public Internet or AMPR.
DHCP would not work for one major reason, it is a Layer 2 (Ethernet) implementation. IP-in-IP is a Layer 3 (IP) connection, therefore, at least one host would have to established the tunnel with a static IP and act as a DHCP relay, defeating the purpose of a Master DHCP Server. It also assumes all devices have a compiled and installed DHCP Client, and requires each station to have a DHCP Server.
Each station is independently capable of allocating their address space as is most convenient (either static or dynamic). From Brian's perspective and that of other stations, we simply need to know the valid route to the subnet.
The AMPR Terms of Service reads:
"The duration of this license is five (5) years, renewable upon Your request and consent to these Terms and Agreement and subject to the discretion of ARDC."
Therefore, under the current rules, there is already an expiration of allocations after a period of time, so the suggestions that each Station should be responsible for maintaining their own Portal account seems to work best
- Lynwood
On 03/12/2013 04:37 PM, lleachii@aol.com wrote:
44net-request@hamradio.ucsd.edu wrote:
My belief is that systems connected to the Internet should respond to ICMP Echo Requests, it is/was in the Host Requirements RFC I think. It's also so useful in an experimental network that I would not want to turn it off.
On the other hand, I strongly believe that allocation of static IP addresses should not *automatically* depend on whether a system is switched on 24/7, nor on whether the system responds to a ping. Static addresses need to be managed manually.
If address space is scarce, allocate it dynamically. That's what DHCP is for.
Best wishes and thanks to all who keep AMPRnet alive!
G4WSZ
Steve Platt
-
Chris Smith -
K7VE - John -
lleachii＠aol.com -
Michael Fox - N6MEF -
Steve Platt