To make it work you need to route it via your public GW and NAT, so it does not leave the router with your 44.x.x.x IP. I think this is a little bit wrong, not to be able to access the portal from a random HamNET IP.
Well, it *does* work from a net-44 IP but it requires sufficiently well setup of the routing... When you have routing setup from the old days (like "route all 44.0.0.0/8 to the radio network") it will not work.
It works OK here from my net-44 IP but still I could envision this would cause problems. E.g. just at the day the portal was down for the move, one amateur here wanted to move his system from the IPIP net to our local BGP routed network and he was unable to delete his gw. So he first setup the GRE tunnel and BGP routing but it did not work due to restrictions at our GW (having both IPIP and BGP does not work) and of course then he could still not reach the portal after it was back up. But he managed to do that from an external IP.
Maybe the portal should not be in one of those 44.190 networks that are not supposed to be on IPIP, but it should be in another net-44 subnet that is both BGP routed on internet and IPIP routed on the mesh. Then it would work OK.
Rob
Maybe the portal should not be in one of those 44.190 networks that are not supposed to be on IPIP, but it should be in another net-44 subnet that is both BGP routed on internet and IPIP routed on the mesh. Then it would work OK.
I could move it to a different block (not within 44.190/16) and set it up so that it’s part of the tunnel/mesh as well if folks think that will be better?
73, Chris - G1FEF
As long as the portal continues to work from Internet 44 and non-44 addresses. All of my 44-net blocks are advertised into global BGP and publicly accessible.
On 19.04.2020 22:11, G1FEF via 44Net wrote:
Maybe the portal should not be in one of those 44.190 networks that are not supposed to be on IPIP, but it should be in another net-44 subnet that is both BGP routed on internet and IPIP routed on the mesh. Then it would work OK.
I could move it to a different block (not within 44.190/16) and set it up so that it’s part of the tunnel/mesh as well if folks think that will be better?
It is safe to route 44.190/15 through the ISP (for those who are affected). They should do it do it for 44.192/10 anyway...
No need to change on your side.
73, Jann
This may cause address conflicts once the addresses are used by the purchasing entity.
It is probably best to implement a plan to move the addresses to a new block.
On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 8:50 PM Jann Traschewski via 44Net < 44net@mailman.ampr.org> wrote:
On 19.04.2020 22:11, G1FEF via 44Net wrote:
Maybe the portal should not be in one of those 44.190 networks that are not supposed to be on IPIP, but it should be in another net-44 subnet that is both BGP routed on internet and IPIP routed on the mesh. Then it would work OK.
I could move it to a different block (not within 44.190/16) and set it up so that it’s part of the tunnel/mesh as well if folks think that will be better?
It is safe to route 44.190/15 through the ISP (for those who are affected). They should do it do it for 44.192/10 anyway...
No need to change on your side.
73, Jann
44Net mailing list 44Net@mailman.ampr.org https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
-
Dave Gingrich -
G1FEF -
Jann Traschewski -
K7VE - John -
Rob Janssen