I've gotten several requests for directly routed subnets (ie, BGP announced CIDR blocks as subnets of 44/8, not tunneled) for ham radio use. These are people who want to set up HSMM networks in the ham bands, D-Star constellations, etc.
I thought I'd ask folks what they think of the idea of setting aside part of the address space for that purpose?
What issues do you see arising from doing so? - Brian
I thought Dstar was set in 10.x.x.x addresses ?
At 11:14 AM 3/6/2012, you wrote:
I've gotten several requests for directly routed subnets (ie, BGP announced CIDR blocks as subnets of 44/8, not tunneled) for ham radio use. These are people who want to set up HSMM networks in the ham bands, D-Star constellations, etc.
I thought I'd ask folks what they think of the idea of setting aside part of the address space for that purpose?
What issues do you see arising from doing so? - Brian _________________________________________ 44Net mailing list 44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
On 3/6/12 11:14 AM, Brian Kantor wrote:
I've gotten several requests for directly routed subnets (ie, BGP announced CIDR blocks as subnets of 44/8, not tunneled) for ham radio use. These are people who want to set up HSMM networks in the ham bands, D-Star constellations, etc.
I thought I'd ask folks what they think of the idea of setting aside part of the address space for that purpose?
I think we should not stand in the way of any useful experimentation or development of amateur radio, and as that increasingly includes IP-based interfaces we should welcome that work in 44/8. As with all amateur activity it is up to the licensee to assure that operation is within Part 97 requirements.
It's also a way to ensure that the UCSD router isn't overwhelmed with traffic, which might be a problem if everything were tunneled through it. Just as traffic from one 44-net gateway can reach another without going through the ampr tunnel, it should be possible for other users in public IP space to do so.
Last I looked at it, there were a couple of hosts in Europe doing this already, has there been any problem from that? Is there any reason that a separate address space is needed? I can imagine that a gateway might want to advertise a different route, perhaps with more filtering, via BGP to the public internet, from the route available through the traditional tunnel protocol.
What issues do you see arising from doing so?
There should be provision in the existing encap.txt/rip44d protocols to include routes to the new gateways. Gateway operators should be reminded to check that the routes they advertise on BGP don't conflict with tunneled routes. Routing might be different, but we should strongly suggest that routes be provided through the traditional gateway to any address also served by BGP, so that a user anywhere could reach the services intended to be provided on that host regardless of the route taken (but leaving the option open for different filtering based on route.)
73 de WA6NMF
Shouldn't it be up to the router user to decide if they want to do directly routed or tunneled subnets? Assi kk7kx
-----Original Message----- From: 44net-bounces+assi=kiloxray.com@hamradio.ucsd.edu [mailto:44net-bounces+assi=kiloxray.com@hamradio.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Brian Kantor Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 11:15 AM To: 44net@hamradio.ucsd.edu Subject: [44net] directly routed subnets
I've gotten several requests for directly routed subnets (ie, BGP announced CIDR blocks as subnets of 44/8, not tunneled) for ham radio use. These are people who want to set up HSMM networks in the ham bands, D-Star constellations, etc.
I thought I'd ask folks what they think of the idea of setting aside part of the address space for that purpose?
What issues do you see arising from doing so? - Brian _________________________________________ 44Net mailing list 44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 12:01:46PM -0800, Assi Friedman wrote:
Shouldn't it be up to the router user to decide if they want to do directly routed or tunneled subnets? Assi kk7kx
There's the issue of BGP-announcing little pieces of net 44. Right now UCSD is announcing the whole thing. - Brian
Certainly anything more specific than a /24 could be ignored / filtered by core routers on the net. It is also bad behavior as folks that run core routers don't want a zillion route prefixes announced filling up their route tables.
But to that, one could announce say a /24 or larger for a region and then it could be routed downstream to Net44 hosts with more specific routes (ie, /25 through /30), at lease as far as the global net community goes. This, of course, is ignoring what routing policies that Net44 is under.
Tim
On Mar 6, 2012, at 12:30 PM, Brian Kantor wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 12:01:46PM -0800, Assi Friedman wrote:
Shouldn't it be up to the router user to decide if they want to do directly routed or tunneled subnets? Assi kk7kx
There's the issue of BGP-announcing little pieces of net 44. Right now UCSD is announcing the whole thing.
- Brian
44Net mailing list 44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
On 3/6/12 12:30 PM, Brian Kantor wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 12:01:46PM -0800, Assi Friedman wrote:
Shouldn't it be up to the router user to decide if they want to do directly routed or tunneled subnets? Assi kk7kx
There's the issue of BGP-announcing little pieces of net 44. Right now UCSD is announcing the whole thing.
It would be simpler to administer if you segmented it and announced only the range for which you had routes, and one for which you didn't offer them. Users could decide whether they wanted UCSD to announce a route for them, or not. But is there anything bad about multiple BGP announcements for the same host? Isn't that conceptually the same as multi-homing?
-- David WA6NMF
On Tue, 6 Mar 2012, Brian Kantor wrote:
There's the issue of BGP-announcing little pieces of net 44. Right now UCSD is announcing the whole thing.
BGP can handle that. It's the ISPs providing transport that may not like to see fragmented parts of a network being announced through theirs without coordination. Use of a route registry service might alleviate those concerns.
Antonio Querubin e-mail: tony@lavanauts.org xmpp: antonioquerubin@gmail.com
B and even C subnets of 44/8 should not be a problem to get routed.
Would 44/8 subnets qualify as peers to research and education networks so that they could get global peering via Internet2, Geánt, RedClara, TEIN, etc?
On 2012-03-07 15:57, Antonio Querubin wrote:
On Tue, 6 Mar 2012, Brian Kantor wrote:
There's the issue of BGP-announcing little pieces of net 44. Right now UCSD is announcing the whole thing.
BGP can handle that. It's the ISPs providing transport that may not like to see fragmented parts of a network being announced through theirs without coordination. Use of a route registry service might alleviate those concerns.
Antonio Querubin e-mail: tony@lavanauts.org xmpp: antonioquerubin@gmail.com _________________________________________ 44Net mailing list 44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
John K7VE had some good thoughts on this in his posting here a couple weeks ago.. Hopefully such a plan would enable some redundant path capabilities if the any of the routers had problems...
Bill
I've gotten several requests for directly routed subnets (ie, BGP announced CIDR blocks as subnets of 44/8, not tunneled) for ham radio use. These are people who want to set up HSMM networks in the ham bands, D-Star constellations, etc.
I thought I'd ask folks what they think of the idea of setting aside part of the address space for that purpose?
What issues do you see arising from doing so? - Brian
-
Antonio Querubin -
Assi Friedman -
Bill Vodall -
Bjorn Pehrson -
Brian Kantor -
Tim Pozar -
WA6NMF -
William Lewis