Re: [44net] TUNNEL vs DIRECT connection of subnets - 44net

14 Mar 2015

On 3/13/15 9:30 PM, Brian Kantor wrote:
...
  At the current moment I can see no way for an AMPRNet
subnet to be both
 TUNNEL and DIRECT (BGP-announced) connected, unless a special provision
 has been made to operate a gateway from a non-44/8 address into the
 BGP-connected subnet.  

 This is because the tunnel mesh can't reach 44/8 addresses that aren't
 reachable via a non-44/8 tunnel entrance.

 This means that we can't have gateways whose entrance address is in 44/8. 
This has been a known issue for about two years now.

The solution to this is to fix the routing on the gateway at UCSD for the IPIP
encap users.  If UCSD network department is unwilling to fix this I'm sure we
can find an alternate IX who would be willing to make it work.

I know my users are more concerned with access to the internet than access to
the rest of 44net, and the ipip encap mesh cannot be configure on the border
router (IPIP encap needs an hardware option).  I'm experimenting with a vRR
that might be able to do it in software, but it's not high on my list of
things to do.

I believe Tim Osburn did some work regarding a tunnel endpoint to bridge the
gap here, but this single gateway design for the IPIP users is holding amprnet
back, and has been for some time.

73's W9CR
-- 
Bryan Fields

727-409-1194 - Voice
727-214-2508 - Fax
http://bryanfields.net