6 Mar
2012
6 Mar
'12
8:37 p.m.
Brian and All,
I always thought it was a waste of a routable /8 to not have it routed
on the Internet, otherwise why are people just not using IANA space instead?
However, if it is to be routed on the internet I think some ground rules must
be established of what is and is not acceptable and penalties for not following
the rules and established guidelines.
Additionally, and I bring this up again, a RWHOIS server should/must be
used (tied in with ARIN on the 44/8 allocation) so that people can query
specific address space that will return the contact/owner of whatever space is
being advertised for whatever reason. Additionally, IRR entries should also be
required for anyone wanting to advertise space via BGP. Those should be some
common sence polices that need to be followed at the very minimum.
Obviously nothing smaller then a /24 should be advertised on the
internet as most Tier 1 carriers will block any address space that is smaller
in their BGP configs. I don't know what the whole breakup of space looks like
within each coordinator's /16 space (for those that have a /16 of space), but I
would think there surely is space in each that could be a usable /24 or larger
that could be utilized for that. Alternatively there seems to be a lot of space
at the upper end of the 44 block that could be used for internet routed blocks
if we wanted to use that first?
IP Space justification will be whole issue within it's self as well,
because if you only REALLY need /28 or /27 of IP's, one will still need to
advertise a /24. Perhaps who ever advertises space via BGP should accept the
condition that if only a portion of the advertise space is being used that you
will accept and allow another person needing the available space so that it's
not wasted. This could be tracked and allocated via the rwhois server in
conjunction with entries in IRR.
UCSD can still advertise the 44/8, and of course if anyone advertises a
more specific route, that will be preferred of the larger aggregate.
Be nice if we were all on a IRC chat channel to bounce ideas around? If
anyone is interested, how about channel #44net on IRC server network freenode
(irc.freenode.net). I'm on there now.
Tim Osburn
www.osburn.com
206.812.6214
W7RSZ
On Tue, 6 Mar 2012, Brian Kantor wrote:
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 11:14:57 -0800
From: Brian Kantor <Brian(a)ucsd.edu>
Reply-To: AMPRNet working group <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu>
To: 44net(a)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(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
6 Mar
6 Mar
9:09 p.m.
New subject: directly routed subnets
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 12:37:24PM -0800, Tim Osburn wrote:
Brian and All,
I always thought it was a waste of a routable /8 to not have it
routed on the Internet, otherwise why are people just not using IANA
space instead? However, if it is to be routed on the internet I think
some ground rules must be established of what is and is not
acceptable and penalties for not following the rules and established
guidelines.
I imagine we'll have to have rules and some sort of binding agreement/contract.
Additionally, and I bring this up again, a RWHOIS
server should/must
be used (tied in with ARIN on the 44/8 allocation) so that people can
query specific address space that will return the contact/owner of
whatever space is being advertised for whatever reason. Additionally,
IRR entries should also be required for anyone wanting to advertise
space via BGP. Those should be some common sence polices that need to
be followed at the very minimum.
Yes, we'd have to do that, and that brings up the issue of who is to
do this - I'm willing but I'm running out of time to do these sorts
of things. We're going to need volunteers to run the rwhois server,
to keep the data up to date, to update the IRR entries, and so on.
This is going to be a big commitment if we decide to do it. In an all
volunteer organization, how will we do what needs to be done?
- Brian
9:30 p.m.
New subject: directly routed subnets
On Mar 6, 2012, at 1:09 PM, Brian Kantor wrote:
I would be happy to host a server and help on this. Perhaps a conference call to brain
storm this a bit and document issues and actions?
Tim
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 12:37:24PM -0800, Tim Osburn
wrote:
Agreed. What organization would the regional orgs contract to? Is there an org that
"holds" the 44/8 space?
Brian and All,
I always thought it was a waste of a routable /8 to not have it
routed on the Internet, otherwise why are people just not using IANA
space instead? However, if it is to be routed on the internet I think
some ground rules must be established of what is and is not
acceptable and penalties for not following the rules and established
guidelines.
I imagine we'll have to have rules and some sort of binding agreement/contract.
Additionally,
and I bring this up again, a RWHOIS server should/must
be used (tied in with ARIN on the 44/8 allocation) so that people can
query specific address space that will return the contact/owner of
whatever space is being advertised for whatever reason. Additionally,
IRR entries should also be required for anyone wanting to advertise
space via BGP. Those should be some common sence polices that need to
be followed at the very minimum.
Yes, we'd have to do that, and that brings up the issue of who is to
do this - I'm willing but I'm running out of time to do these sorts
of things. We're going to need volunteers to run the rwhois server,
to keep the data up to date, to update the IRR entries, and so on.
This is going to be a big commitment if we decide to do it. In an all
volunteer organization, how will we do what needs to be done?
- Brian
9:49 p.m.
New subject: directly routed subnets
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 01:30:44PM -0800, Tim Pozar wrote:
Agreed. What organization would the regional orgs
contract to? Is there an org that "holds" the 44/8 space?
_Amateur Radio Digital Communications_ is listed as the "owner" of
the 44.0.0.0/8 netspace. It's a non-profit incorporated in the state
of California.
It was formed to hold the address space for ham radio use even if something
were to happen to me.
I would be happy to host a server and help on this.
That would be wonderful.
Perhaps a conference call to brain storm this a bit
and document issues and actions?
Email has advantages for recordkeeping. Should we set up a separate mailing list for
this?
- Brian
10:02 p.m.
New subject: directly routed subnets
Would be nice if there is some dedicated Linux/*BSD box out there that we can host things
like:
* rwhois server
* DNS
* etc.
Mail and Web services may not need to move and it may just add some security risk (cgi
exploits, etc.)
Think that having it at USD would be fine. Perhaps even assigned 44/8 space.
Tim
On Mar 6, 2012, at 1:49 PM, Brian Kantor wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 01:30:44PM -0800, Tim Pozar
wrote:
Agreed. What organization would the regional
orgs contract to? Is there an org that "holds" the 44/8 space?
_Amateur Radio Digital Communications_ is listed as the "owner" of
the 44.0.0.0/8 netspace. It's a non-profit incorporated in the state
of California.
It was formed to hold the address space for ham radio use even if something
were to happen to me.
I would be happy to host a server and help on
this.
That would be wonderful.
Perhaps a conference call to brain storm this a
bit and document issues and actions?
Email has advantages for recordkeeping. Should we set up a separate mailing list for
this?
- Brian
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
10:12 p.m.
New subject: directly routed subnets
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 02:02:07PM -0800, Tim Pozar wrote:
Would be nice if there is some dedicated Linux/*BSD
box out there that we can host things like:
* rwhois server
* DNS
* etc.
Mail and Web services may not need to move and it may just add some security risk (cgi
exploits, etc.)
Think that having it at USD would be fine. Perhaps even assigned 44/8 space.
Tim
Well, hamradio.ucsd.edu is certainly available; it's the master AMPR DNS server
already and it hosts this mailing list. Adding the rwhois server to it wouldn't
task it too much, I think. We could have backup/redundant servers as appropriate.
Services can move as they outgrow it.
- Brian
10:22 p.m.
New subject: directly routed subnets
That would be fine. Not knowing much about this box, it would be nice if it was somewhat
current in its distro for package management, et.c You ok with others having SUDO on this
to update and restart services?
Tim
On Mar 6, 2012, at 2:12 PM, Brian Kantor wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 02:02:07PM -0800, Tim Pozar
wrote:
Would be nice if there is some dedicated
Linux/*BSD box out there that we can host things like:
* rwhois server
* DNS
* etc.
Mail and Web services may not need to move and it may just add some security risk (cgi
exploits, etc.)
Think that having it at USD would be fine. Perhaps even assigned 44/8 space.
Tim
Well, hamradio.ucsd.edu is certainly available; it's the master AMPR DNS server
already and it hosts this mailing list. Adding the rwhois server to it wouldn't
task it too much, I think. We could have backup/redundant servers as appropriate.
Services can move as they outgrow it.
- Brian
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
9:54 p.m.
New subject: directly routed subnets
I can also volunteer time, hosting, and services as needed for whatever we need.
Tim Osburn
www.osburn.com
206.812.6214
W7RSZ
On Tue, 6 Mar 2012, Tim Pozar wrote:
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 13:30:44 -0800
From: Tim Pozar <pozar(a)lns.com>
Reply-To: AMPRNet working group <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu>
To: AMPRNet working group <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu>
Subject: Re: [44net] directly routed subnets
On Mar 6, 2012, at 1:09 PM, Brian Kantor wrote:
I would be happy to host a server and help on this. Perhaps a conference call to brain
storm this a bit and document issues and actions?
Tim
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 12:37:24PM -0800, Tim
Osburn wrote:
Agreed. What organization would the regional orgs contract to? Is there an org that
"holds" the 44/8 space?
Brian and All,
I always thought it was a waste of a routable /8 to not have it
routed on the Internet, otherwise why are people just not using IANA
space instead? However, if it is to be routed on the internet I think
some ground rules must be established of what is and is not
acceptable and penalties for not following the rules and established
guidelines.
I imagine we'll have to have rules and some sort of binding agreement/contract.
Additionally, and I bring this up again, a RWHOIS server should/must
be used (tied in with ARIN on the 44/8 allocation) so that people can
query specific address space that will return the contact/owner of
whatever space is being advertised for whatever reason. Additionally,
IRR entries should also be required for anyone wanting to advertise
space via BGP. Those should be some common sence polices that need to
be followed at the very minimum.
Yes, we'd have to do that, and that brings up the issue of who is to
do this - I'm willing but I'm running out of time to do these sorts
of things. We're going to need volunteers to run the rwhois server,
to keep the data up to date, to update the IRR entries, and so on.
This is going to be a big commitment if we decide to do it. In an all
volunteer organization, how will we do what needs to be done?
- Brian 
9:56 p.m.
New subject: directly routed subnets
I think targeting BGP advertising for /16 subnets would be a good
benchmark. That would mean less than 256 entries for core routers. (Fewer
if some were combined.)
Each of the /16 subnets should have a competent router in a data center
with bandwidth, backup power, etc. and some agreement for continuity.
Anyone wishing to sponsor/administer one of these "Tier 1" routers should
demonstrate:
1. Financial viability to keep it up and running for an extended and
indefinite period. This could include a MOU of donated bandwidth,
underwriting by some entity, and/or pledges of financial support.
2. A capable router (with a spare) or routers. We could specify
reference hardware/software.
1. For example, I would suggest something like
http://routerboard.com/pdf/348/RB1100AH.pdf
1. Up to 3 Gbit/Sec aggregate throughput,
2. Multiple Ethernet ports for bonding / failover / dedicated
management LAN, etc.
3. MPLS (bypass regular routing for identified traffic)
4. Unlimited (except by memory/tablespace) VPN tunnels (IPIP,
PPTP, LT2P, OpenVPN, ...)
5. IPv4/IPv6 capabilities
3. Committed, primary and backup administrators with competence in IP
Network administration and design.
4. Ownership of the router(s) should probably be held by an organization
(Non Profit?) for continuity, which has a charter, bylaws, and procedures
to insure continuity as volunteers accept or resign responsibilities.
Much of the motivation for Net-44 is related to Emergency Communications
support (at least in North America) so you want these "Tier 1" routers to
be "hardened" as much as possible.
The "Tier 1" routers should be closely aligned with a network manager (who
is also the address administrator for the associated /16 subnet). The
network manager would work with any "Tier 2" router managers (LANs, etc.)
to build out further subnets and routes within the /16 subnet.
Each /16 subnet also needs other services, such as DNS services (including
delegated sub domain / dynamic DNS), online application for address space,
management, and reporting.
------------------------------
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>
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 13:09, Brian Kantor <Brian(a)ucsd.edu> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 12:37:24PM -0800, Tim Osburn
wrote:
Brian and All,
I always thought it was a waste of a routable /8 to not have it
routed on the Internet, otherwise why are people just not using IANA
space instead? However, if it is to be routed on the internet I think
some ground rules must be established of what is and is not
acceptable and penalties for not following the rules and established
guidelines.
I imagine we'll have to have rules and some sort of binding
agreement/contract.
Additionally, and I bring this up again, a
RWHOIS server
should/must
be used (tied in with ARIN on the 44/8
allocation) so that people can
query specific address space that will return the contact/owner of
whatever space is being advertised for whatever reason. Additionally,
IRR entries should also be required for anyone wanting to advertise
space via BGP. Those should be some common sence polices that need to
be followed at the very minimum.
Yes, we'd have to do that, and that brings up the issue of who is to
do this - I'm willing but I'm running out of time to do these sorts
of things. We're going to need volunteers to run the rwhois server,
to keep the data up to date, to update the IRR entries, and so on.
This is going to be a big commitment if we decide to do it. In an all
volunteer organization, how will we do what needs to be done?
- Brian
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
10:19 p.m.
New subject: directly routed subnets
Great start on the details.
BTW... I wouldn't nail down the hardware to a specific make/model too much. I run a
1+ Gig community network on a pair of OpenBSD routers (in failover via VRRP/HSRP/CARP). I
run trunks to it and break it out on common managed switches (ie cisco 2960G). The boxes
themselves are two Rackable servers with the hard drives replaced with SSDs.
I think the requirements for the border router could include:
Must:
* Can support at least one full route table.
* Supports 200% of expected bandwidth needs.
Ie. Up and Downstream feeds, PPS, etc.
* Be supported by conditioned and emergency power
* HVAC is also on emergency power
* Physically secure and accessible by the regional coordinator and "Amateur Radio
Digital Communications" authorized representatives only.
* (More?)
Should:
* router(s) are multi-homed
* routers have fail-over (hot-spare)
Couldl:
* Enough memory to support large NAT tables (if needed)
* MPLS
* VLANs,
* (More?)
You may have two routers speaking BGP and core and access routers downstream of this. It
may all be L3 or it could be L2. Up to the needs of the installation (ie downstream
links) and the needs of the community.
Tim
On Mar 6, 2012, at 1:56 PM, K7VE - John wrote:
I think targeting BGP advertising for /16 subnets
would be a good benchmark. That would mean less than 256 entries for core routers.
(Fewer if some were combined.)
Each of the /16 subnets should have a competent router in a data center with bandwidth,
backup power, etc. and some agreement for continuity.
Anyone wishing to sponsor/administer one of these "Tier 1" routers should
demonstrate:
• Financial viability to keep it up and running for an extended and indefinite period.
This could include a MOU of donated bandwidth, underwriting by some entity, and/or pledges
of financial support.
• A capable router (with a spare) or routers. We could specify reference
hardware/software.
• For example, I would suggest something like
http://routerboard.com/pdf/348/RB1100AH.pdf
• Up to 3 Gbit/Sec aggregate throughput,
• Multiple Ethernet ports for bonding / failover / dedicated management LAN, etc.
• MPLS (bypass regular routing for identified traffic)
• Unlimited (except by memory/tablespace) VPN tunnels (IPIP, PPTP, LT2P, OpenVPN,
...)
• IPv4/IPv6 capabilities
• Committed, primary and backup administrators with competence in IP Network
administration and design.
• Ownership of the router(s) should probably be held by an organization (Non Profit?)
for continuity, which has a charter, bylaws, and procedures to insure continuity as
volunteers accept or resign responsibilities.
Much of the motivation for Net-44 is related to Emergency Communications support (at
least in North America) so you want these "Tier 1" routers to be
"hardened" as much as possible.
The "Tier 1" routers should be closely aligned with a network manager (who is
also the address administrator for the associated /16 subnet). The network manager would
work with any "Tier 2" router managers (LANs, etc.) to build out further subnets
and routes within the /16 subnet.
Each /16 subnet also needs other services, such as DNS services (including delegated sub
domain / dynamic DNS), online application for address space, management, and reporting.
John D. Hays
K7VEPO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 13:09, Brian Kantor <Brian(a)ucsd.edu> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 12:37:24PM -0800, Tim Osburn wrote:
Brian and All,
I always thought it was a waste of a routable /8 to not have it
routed on the Internet, otherwise why are people just not using IANA
space instead? However, if it is to be routed on the internet I think
some ground rules must be established of what is and is not
acceptable and penalties for not following the rules and established
guidelines.
I imagine we'll have to have rules and some sort of binding agreement/contract.
Additionally, and I bring this up again, a
RWHOIS server should/must
be used (tied in with ARIN on the 44/8 allocation) so that people can
query specific address space that will return the contact/owner of
whatever space is being advertised for whatever reason. Additionally,
IRR entries should also be required for anyone wanting to advertise
space via BGP. Those should be some common sence polices that need to
be followed at the very minimum.
Yes, we'd have to do that, and that brings up the issue of who is to
do this - I'm willing but I'm running out of time to do these sorts
of things. We're going to need volunteers to run the rwhois server,
to keep the data up to date, to update the IRR entries, and so on.
This is going to be a big commitment if we decide to do it. In an all
volunteer organization, how will we do what needs to be done?
- Brian
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
10:48 p.m.
New subject: directly routed subnets
Tim,
I wouldn't suggest we demand a certain make/model. My intent is
"reference" configurations. Certainly a professional can come up with
something that is competent and architecturally compatible.
I also know that an "amateur" / volunteer built and managed infrastructure
often needs recipes for those who are technically competent enough to learn
how to perform routine maintenance, but may not know where to start.
I've been involved in helping a whole bunch of D-STAR gateways come online
and while someone familiar with systems and network administration can work
their way through the "rough" spots, often when it comes to that little
extra to track down a problem, there is just not the knowledge and/or
experience to do so -- so they reach out to others. If we have some
reference implementations, and a new border router uses that recipe, then
it is much more possible to advise on troubleshooting.
If a widely deployed system is used, then there is a larger community that
has discovered and documented special cases, which are often available on
the net.
------------------------------
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>
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 14:19, Tim Pozar <pozar(a)lns.com> wrote:
Great start on the details.
BTW... I wouldn't nail down the hardware to a specific make/model too
much. I run a 1+ Gig community network on a pair of OpenBSD routers (in
failover via VRRP/HSRP/CARP). I run trunks to it and break it out on
common managed switches (ie cisco 2960G). The boxes themselves are two
Rackable servers with the hard drives replaced with SSDs.
I think the requirements for the border router could include:
Must:
* Can support at least one full route table.
* Supports 200% of expected bandwidth needs.
Ie. Up and Downstream feeds, PPS, etc.
* Be supported by conditioned and emergency power
* HVAC is also on emergency power
* Physically secure and accessible by the regional coordinator and
"Amateur Radio Digital Communications" authorized representatives only.
* (More?)
Should:
* router(s) are multi-homed
* routers have fail-over (hot-spare)
Couldl:
* Enough memory to support large NAT tables (if needed)
* MPLS
* VLANs,
* (More?)
You may have two routers speaking BGP and core and access routers
downstream of this. It may all be L3 or it could be L2. Up to the needs
of the installation (ie downstream links) and the needs of the community.
Tim
11:53 p.m.
New subject: directly routed subnets
To expand further on a multi-homed system and with some solid network experience running a
global company network via VSAT and other Global Mixed Links:
1) Regarding Routers - A FreeBSD Router running a package such as PFSENSE fits the bill
http://www.pfsense.org and is well in the price range of any amateur operator (Free)
except it needs to run on a very robust hardware platform.
2) Regarding the requirements for security - I agree that a form of security is needed to
ensure that someone is not abusing the system. A content filter such as Squid/SquidGuard
or DansGuardian could be used to ensure that no nasty things come about across amateur
radio bands or the 44 Net.
3) Regarding scalability and IP addressing issues, we should have the capabilities for a
regional sub-router that has all tie ins to the MPLS via a tunnel, direct connection, or
ip-ip tunnel. This can easily doll out SECURE VPN (OpenVPN) tunnels to any node or
sub-node that is connected to a public network with little to no overhead. This also
opens up another aspect of bridging the network together and that is MULTICAST voip using
an open source low bandwidth codec as an alternative to the DSTAR AMBE Codec.
4) Regarding DNS, this can be performed rather easily as if you are utilizing a *nix based
OS you can run a DNS Mirror of the entire network locally as this is a smaller portion of
the internet as a whole.
I am also going to add that caching can also be utilized by sub-nodes to serve out pages
that have been served out before thus cutting bandwidth requirements by 40% or more, this
also allows something else - A COMPLETELY OFFLINE COPY! so if the internet ever goes down,
there is a copy of the pages in question on a regional node, that may have a chance to
propagate the page to a user that needs it should we have global network backbone
outages.
In our network for Louisiana that is in the design phases now, we have incorporated all of
these things, as well as given an ipip tunnel option for each regional router that can
populate edge and border gateways behind it with BGP routes and information. This is all
incorporated using RF links and if not in range of an RF link, a tunnel to one of 9
regional routers.
We have also carved portions of the address space to allow this as well.
In order to obtain internet access, a user must authenticate their call sign so that all
web traffic can be logged, in the event of an abuse of the system.
The entire system is set to utilize HSMM (High Speed Multi Media) Mesh Radio Links in the
900MHz, 430MHz (Testing New Cards now), 5.8GHz, and 2.4GHz bands.
I also have drawings, diagrams, and explanations of the entire network design if anyone is
interested.
Best Regards,
Elias Basse
KD5JFE
Louisiana AMPRNET Coordinator
On Mar 6, 2012, at 4:48 PM, K7VE - John wrote:
Tim,
I wouldn't suggest we demand a certain make/model. My intent is
"reference" configurations. Certainly a professional can come up with
something that is competent and architecturally compatible.
I also know that an "amateur" / volunteer built and managed infrastructure
often needs recipes for those who are technically competent enough to learn how to perform
routine maintenance, but may not know where to start.
I've been involved in helping a whole bunch of D-STAR gateways come online and while
someone familiar with systems and network administration can work their way through the
"rough" spots, often when it comes to that little extra to track down a problem,
there is just not the knowledge and/or experience to do so -- so they reach out to others.
If we have some reference implementations, and a new border router uses that recipe, then
it is much more possible to advise on troubleshooting.
If a widely deployed system is used, then there is a larger community that has discovered
and documented special cases, which are often available on the net.
John D. Hays
K7VEPO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 14:19, Tim Pozar <pozar(a)lns.com> wrote:
Great start on the details.
BTW... I wouldn't nail down the hardware to a specific make/model too much. I run
a 1+ Gig community network on a pair of OpenBSD routers (in failover via VRRP/HSRP/CARP).
I run trunks to it and break it out on common managed switches (ie cisco 2960G). The
boxes themselves are two Rackable servers with the hard drives replaced with SSDs.
I think the requirements for the border router could include:
Must:
* Can support at least one full route table.
* Supports 200% of expected bandwidth needs.
Ie. Up and Downstream feeds, PPS, etc.
* Be supported by conditioned and emergency power
* HVAC is also on emergency power
* Physically secure and accessible by the regional coordinator and "Amateur Radio
Digital Communications" authorized representatives only.
* (More?)
Should:
* router(s) are multi-homed
* routers have fail-over (hot-spare)
Couldl:
* Enough memory to support large NAT tables (if needed)
* MPLS
* VLANs,
* (More?)
You may have two routers speaking BGP and core and access routers downstream of this. It
may all be L3 or it could be L2. Up to the needs of the installation (ie downstream
links) and the needs of the community.
Tim
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
7 Mar
7 Mar
12:04 a.m.
New subject: directly routed subnets
Great ideas.
May I suggest that the router facing the net (ie running BGP4) does not have to have all
of these features on it. In our deployment, the two OpenBSD (PF) boxes we are running are
border only. They only run BGP4 and have GigE ports trunked going to a switch that breaks
things out and connects to access routers that are downstream that do all the
"customer" facing "features". This could be GRE, IPinIP, etc. Access
routers could be anything from KA9Q to Mikrotik to Soekris boxes running Linux, etc.
Normally you are going to make changes on the access routers and you want to keep the
border routers as stable as possible so you keep changes to a minimum there.
Having this separation really has saved our bacon a number of times in the City of San
Francisco Community Broadband Network we are running.
Tim
On Mar 6, 2012, at 3:53 PM, Elias Basse wrote:
To expand further on a multi-homed system and with
some solid network experience running a global company network via VSAT and other Global
Mixed Links:
1) Regarding Routers - A FreeBSD Router running a package such as PFSENSE fits the bill
http://www.pfsense.org and is well in the price range of any amateur operator (Free)
except it needs to run on a very robust hardware platform.
2) Regarding the requirements for security - I agree that a form of security is needed to
ensure that someone is not abusing the system. A content filter such as Squid/SquidGuard
or DansGuardian could be used to ensure that no nasty things come about across amateur
radio bands or the 44 Net.
3) Regarding scalability and IP addressing issues, we should have the capabilities for a
regional sub-router that has all tie ins to the MPLS via a tunnel, direct connection, or
ip-ip tunnel. This can easily doll out SECURE VPN (OpenVPN) tunnels to any node or
sub-node that is connected to a public network with little to no overhead. This also
opens up another aspect of bridging the network together and that is MULTICAST voip using
an open source low bandwidth codec as an alternative to the DSTAR AMBE Codec.
4) Regarding DNS, this can be performed rather easily as if you are utilizing a *nix
based OS you can run a DNS Mirror of the entire network locally as this is a smaller
portion of the internet as a whole.
I am also going to add that caching can also be utilized by sub-nodes to serve out pages
that have been served out before thus cutting bandwidth requirements by 40% or more, this
also allows something else - A COMPLETELY OFFLINE COPY! so if the internet ever goes down,
there is a copy of the pages in question on a regional node, that may have a chance to
propagate the page to a user that needs it should we have global network backbone
outages.
In our network for Louisiana that is in the design phases now, we have incorporated all
of these things, as well as given an ipip tunnel option for each regional router that can
populate edge and border gateways behind it with BGP routes and information. This is all
incorporated using RF links and if not in range of an RF link, a tunnel to one of 9
regional routers.
We have also carved portions of the address space to allow this as well.
In order to obtain internet access, a user must authenticate their call sign so that all
web traffic can be logged, in the event of an abuse of the system.
The entire system is set to utilize HSMM (High Speed Multi Media) Mesh Radio Links in the
900MHz, 430MHz (Testing New Cards now), 5.8GHz, and 2.4GHz bands.
I also have drawings, diagrams, and explanations of the entire network design if anyone
is interested.
Best Regards,
Elias Basse
KD5JFE
Louisiana AMPRNET Coordinator
On Mar 6, 2012, at 4:48 PM, K7VE - John wrote:
Tim,
I wouldn't suggest we demand a certain make/model. My intent is
"reference" configurations. Certainly a professional can come up with
something that is competent and architecturally compatible.
I also know that an "amateur" / volunteer built and managed infrastructure
often needs recipes for those who are technically competent enough to learn how to perform
routine maintenance, but may not know where to start.
I've been involved in helping a whole bunch of D-STAR gateways come online and while
someone familiar with systems and network administration can work their way through the
"rough" spots, often when it comes to that little extra to track down a problem,
there is just not the knowledge and/or experience to do so -- so they reach out to others.
If we have some reference implementations, and a new border router uses that recipe, then
it is much more possible to advise on troubleshooting.
If a widely deployed system is used, then there is a larger community that has discovered
and documented special cases, which are often available on the net.
John D. Hays
K7VEPO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 14:19, Tim Pozar <pozar(a)lns.com> wrote:
Great start on the details.
BTW... I wouldn't nail down the hardware to a specific make/model too much. I run
a 1+ Gig community network on a pair of OpenBSD routers (in failover via VRRP/HSRP/CARP).
I run trunks to it and break it out on common managed switches (ie cisco 2960G). The
boxes themselves are two Rackable servers with the hard drives replaced with SSDs.
I think the requirements for the border router could include:
Must:
* Can support at least one full route table.
* Supports 200% of expected bandwidth needs.
Ie. Up and Downstream feeds, PPS, etc.
* Be supported by conditioned and emergency power
* HVAC is also on emergency power
* Physically secure and accessible by the regional coordinator and "Amateur Radio
Digital Communications" authorized representatives only.
* (More?)
Should:
* router(s) are multi-homed
* routers have fail-over (hot-spare)
Couldl:
* Enough memory to support large NAT tables (if needed)
* MPLS
* VLANs,
* (More?)
You may have two routers speaking BGP and core and access routers downstream of this. It
may all be L3 or it could be L2. Up to the needs of the installation (ie downstream
links) and the needs of the community.
Tim
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
12:20 a.m.
New subject: directly routed subnets
I agree, this is in good practice and should be adhered to.
We are utilizing Cisco 7200 series as the actual net facing edge routers although some
will be 2800 series.
These could be substituted with FreeBSD to save cost.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 6, 2012, at 6:04 PM, Tim Pozar <pozar(a)lns.com> wrote:
Great ideas.
May I suggest that the router facing the net (ie running BGP4) does not have to have all
of these features on it. In our deployment, the two OpenBSD (PF) boxes we are running are
border only. They only run BGP4 and have GigE ports trunked going to a switch that breaks
things out and connects to access routers that are downstream that do all the
"customer" facing "features". This could be GRE, IPinIP, etc. Access
routers could be anything from KA9Q to Mikrotik to Soekris boxes running Linux, etc.
Normally you are going to make changes on the access routers and you want to keep the
border routers as stable as possible so you keep changes to a minimum there.
Having this separation really has saved our bacon a number of times in the City of San
Francisco Community Broadband Network we are running.
Tim
On Mar 6, 2012, at 3:53 PM, Elias Basse wrote:
To expand further on a multi-homed system and
with some solid network experience running a global company network via VSAT and other
Global Mixed Links:
1) Regarding Routers - A FreeBSD Router running a package such as PFSENSE fits the bill
http://www.pfsense.org and is well in the price range of any amateur operator (Free)
except it needs to run on a very robust hardware platform.
2) Regarding the requirements for security - I agree that a form of security is needed to
ensure that someone is not abusing the system. A content filter such as Squid/SquidGuard
or DansGuardian could be used to ensure that no nasty things come about across amateur
radio bands or the 44 Net.
3) Regarding scalability and IP addressing issues, we should have the capabilities for a
regional sub-router that has all tie ins to the MPLS via a tunnel, direct connection, or
ip-ip tunnel. This can easily doll out SECURE VPN (OpenVPN) tunnels to any node or
sub-node that is connected to a public network with little to no overhead. This also
opens up another aspect of bridging the network together and that is MULTICAST voip using
an open source low bandwidth codec as an alternative to the DSTAR AMBE Codec.
4) Regarding DNS, this can be performed rather easily as if you are utilizing a *nix
based OS you can run a DNS Mirror of the entire network locally as this is a smaller
portion of the internet as a whole.
I am also going to add that caching can also be utilized by sub-nodes to serve out pages
that have been served out before thus cutting bandwidth requirements by 40% or more, this
also allows something else - A COMPLETELY OFFLINE COPY! so if the internet ever goes down,
there is a copy of the pages in question on a regional node, that may have a chance to
propagate the page to a user that needs it should we have global network backbone
outages.
In our network for Louisiana that is in the design phases now, we have incorporated all
of these things, as well as given an ipip tunnel option for each regional router that can
populate edge and border gateways behind it with BGP routes and information. This is all
incorporated using RF links and if not in range of an RF link, a tunnel to one of 9
regional routers.
We have also carved portions of the address space to allow this as well.
In order to obtain internet access, a user must authenticate their call sign so that all
web traffic can be logged, in the event of an abuse of the system.
The entire system is set to utilize HSMM (High Speed Multi Media) Mesh Radio Links in the
900MHz, 430MHz (Testing New Cards now), 5.8GHz, and 2.4GHz bands.
I also have drawings, diagrams, and explanations of the entire network design if anyone
is interested.
Best Regards,
Elias Basse
KD5JFE
Louisiana AMPRNET Coordinator
On Mar 6, 2012, at 4:48 PM, K7VE - John wrote:
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net Tim,
I wouldn't suggest we demand a certain make/model. My intent is
"reference" configurations. Certainly a professional can come up with
something that is competent and architecturally compatible.
I also know that an "amateur" / volunteer built and managed infrastructure
often needs recipes for those who are technically competent enough to learn how to perform
routine maintenance, but may not know where to start.
I've been involved in helping a whole bunch of D-STAR gateways come online and while
someone familiar with systems and network administration can work their way through the
"rough" spots, often when it comes to that little extra to track down a problem,
there is just not the knowledge and/or experience to do so -- so they reach out to others.
If we have some reference implementations, and a new border router uses that recipe, then
it is much more possible to advise on troubleshooting.
If a widely deployed system is used, then there is a larger community that has discovered
and documented special cases, which are often available on the net.
John D. Hays
K7VEPO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 14:19, Tim Pozar <pozar(a)lns.com> wrote:
Great start on the details.
BTW... I wouldn't nail down the hardware to a specific make/model too much. I run
a 1+ Gig community network on a pair of OpenBSD routers (in failover via VRRP/HSRP/CARP).
I run trunks to it and break it out on common managed switches (ie cisco 2960G). The
boxes themselves are two Rackable servers with the hard drives replaced with SSDs.
I think the requirements for the border router could include:
Must:
* Can support at least one full route table.
* Supports 200% of expected bandwidth needs.
Ie. Up and Downstream feeds, PPS, etc.
* Be supported by conditioned and emergency power
* HVAC is also on emergency power
* Physically secure and accessible by the regional coordinator and "Amateur Radio
Digital Communications" authorized representatives only.
* (More?)
Should:
* router(s) are multi-homed
* routers have fail-over (hot-spare)
Couldl:
* Enough memory to support large NAT tables (if needed)
* MPLS
* VLANs,
* (More?)
You may have two routers speaking BGP and core and access routers downstream of this. It
may all be L3 or it could be L2. Up to the needs of the installation (ie downstream
links) and the needs of the community.
Tim
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
12:30 a.m.
New subject: directly routed subnets
I think its important to remember all of the amateur radio restrictions on
content are at the point when the traffic moves onto RF under amateur radio
rules, e.g. in the US, you can operate Part 97 (Amateur) or Part 15 on many
of our microwave bands. Responsibility for filtering content should be
delegated to the party responsible for gating to amateur radio RF.
If we try to control, consistently, at the border gateways, we may be
filtering content that would be otherwise permitted. I think a lot of
amateur networks living on the Internet loose a lot of utility because of
the "one size fits all" or "*one ring to rule them all*" approach.
The
operator of the border router can "throttle" or "filter" traffic
depending
on available bandwidth and local needs.
The network manager / coordinator has a responsibility to insure that the
address space is not being misused and using authenticated access by
subnets, via tunnels or other mechanisms, allows the network manager to
revoke access to a subnet under his/her tier one router for abuse.
If we really want to grow the network, with useful applications, we need to
strike a balance between security and ease of setup / access. Many
applications will have users that are not familiar with the subtleties of
the network and some of our LAN operators will not be strong
administrators. Our greatest need for expertise is at the bridge/gateway to
amateur radio RF and this may be the exact place that we find the least
expertise, this is where the network manager needs to have a toolbox at
his/her disposal to assist. Intervening layers of infrastructure should be
largely "plug and play" -- even to the point where the network manager
says, if you want to connect to the border router, here is a configuration
and credentials for "X" router, install this and you will have
connectivity. Then provide pointers to applications, tools, and
configurations to handle the interconnection of RF.
When AMPRNET was created, we didn't have a lot of the tools we do now, nor
inexpensive off the shelf systems for infrastructure. For example, today we
could have an AX.25 daemon that listens to a TNC or other bridge to RF and
at least in the US, lookup the callsign in the AX.25 header in a copy of
the FCC license database and do a DHCP address assignment to the device on
the other end of the AX.25 connection, add a dynamic DNS entry, and start
routing traffic. With all but the AX.25 daemon being "off the
shelf", pre-configured, hardware.
We have a habit of making things more complex than they need to be and
promoting some "roll your own" solution that could easily be accomplished
using off the shelf technology. Certainly, we should encourage and support
experimentation and innovation, but that is only a segment of the user base
a successful network can and should support.
------------------------------
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>
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 16:04, Tim Pozar <pozar(a)lns.com> wrote:
Great ideas.
May I suggest that the router facing the net (ie running BGP4) does not
have to have all of these features on it. In our deployment, the two
OpenBSD (PF) boxes we are running are border only. They only run BGP4 and
have GigE ports trunked going to a switch that breaks things out and
connects to access routers that are downstream that do all the "customer"
facing "features". This could be GRE, IPinIP, etc. Access routers could
be anything from KA9Q to Mikrotik to Soekris boxes running Linux, etc.
Normally you are going to make changes on the access routers and you want
to keep the border routers as stable as possible so you keep changes to a
minimum there.
Having this separation really has saved our bacon a number of times in the
City of San Francisco Community Broadband Network we are running.
Tim
On Mar 6, 2012, at 3:53 PM, Elias Basse wrote:
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
To expand further on a multi-homed system and
with some solid network
experience running a global company network via VSAT and
other Global Mixed
Links:
1) Regarding Routers - A FreeBSD Router running a package such as
PFSENSE fits the
bill http://www.pfsense.org and is well in the price
range of any amateur operator (Free) except it needs to run on a very
robust hardware platform.
2) Regarding the requirements for security - I agree that a form of
security is
needed to ensure that someone is not abusing the system. A
content filter such as Squid/SquidGuard or DansGuardian could be used to
ensure that no nasty things come about across amateur radio bands or the 44
Net.
3) Regarding scalability and IP addressing issues, we should have the
capabilities
for a regional sub-router that has all tie ins to the MPLS via
a tunnel, direct connection, or ip-ip tunnel. This can easily doll out
SECURE VPN (OpenVPN) tunnels to any node or sub-node that is connected to a
public network with little to no overhead. This also opens up another
aspect of bridging the network together and that is MULTICAST voip using an
open source low bandwidth codec as an alternative to the DSTAR AMBE Codec.
4) Regarding DNS, this can be performed rather easily as if you are
utilizing a
*nix based OS you can run a DNS Mirror of the entire network
locally as this is a smaller portion of the internet as a whole.
I am also going to add that caching can also be utilized by sub-nodes to
serve out
pages that have been served out before thus cutting bandwidth
requirements by 40% or more, this also allows something else - A COMPLETELY
OFFLINE COPY! so if the internet ever goes down, there is a copy of the
pages in question on a regional node, that may have a chance to propagate
the page to a user that needs it should we have global network backbone
outages.
In our network for Louisiana that is in the design phases now, we have
incorporated all of these things, as well as given an ipip tunnel option
for each regional router that can populate edge and border gateways behind
it with BGP routes and information. This is all incorporated using RF
links and if not in range of an RF link, a tunnel to one of 9 regional
routers.
We have also carved portions of the address space to allow this as well.
In order to obtain internet access, a user must authenticate their call
sign so
that all web traffic can be logged, in the event of an abuse of the
system.
The entire system is set to utilize HSMM (High Speed Multi Media) Mesh
Radio Links
in the 900MHz, 430MHz (Testing New Cards now), 5.8GHz, and
2.4GHz bands.
I also have drawings, diagrams, and explanations of the entire network
design if
anyone is interested.
Best Regards,
Elias Basse
KD5JFE
Louisiana AMPRNET Coordinator
On Mar 6, 2012, at 4:48 PM, K7VE - John wrote:
> Tim,
>
> I wouldn't suggest we demand a certain make/model. My intent is
"reference" configurations. Certainly a professional can come up with
something that is competent and architecturally compatible.
>
> I also know that an "amateur" / volunteer built and managed
infrastructure often needs recipes for those who are technically competent
enough to learn how to perform routine maintenance, but may not know where
to start.
>
> I've been involved in helping a whole bunch of D-STAR gateways come
online
and while someone familiar with systems and network administration
can work their way through the "rough" spots, often when it comes to that
little extra to track down a problem, there is just not the knowledge
and/or experience to do so -- so they reach out to others. If we have some
reference implementations, and a new border router uses that recipe, then
it is much more possible to advise on troubleshooting.
>
> If a widely deployed system is used, then there is a larger community
that has
discovered and documented special cases, which are often available
on the net.
>
> John D. Hays
> K7VEPO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 14:19, Tim Pozar <pozar(a)lns.com> wrote:
> Great start on the details.
>
> BTW... I wouldn't nail down the hardware to a specific make/model too
much. I run a 1+ Gig community network on a pair of OpenBSD routers (in
failover via VRRP/HSRP/CARP). I run trunks to it and break it out on
common managed switches (ie cisco 2960G). The boxes themselves are two
Rackable servers with the hard drives replaced with SSDs.
>
> I think the requirements for the border router could include:
>
> Must:
> * Can support at least one full route table.
> * Supports 200% of expected bandwidth needs.
> Ie. Up and Downstream feeds, PPS, etc.
> * Be supported by conditioned and emergency power
> * HVAC is also on emergency power
> * Physically secure and accessible by the regional coordinator and
"Amateur Radio Digital Communications" authorized representatives only.
> * (More?)
>
> Should:
> * router(s) are multi-homed
> * routers have fail-over (hot-spare)
>
> Couldl:
> * Enough memory to support large NAT tables (if needed)
> * MPLS
> * VLANs,
> * (More?)
>
> You may have two routers speaking BGP and core and access routers
downstream
of this. It may all be L3 or it could be L2. Up to the needs
of the installation (ie downstream links) and the needs of the community.
Tim
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
14 Mar
14 Mar
9:30 p.m.
New subject: directly routed subnets
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 01:09:03PM -0800, Brian Kantor wrote:
I imagine we'll have to have rules and some sort
of binding agreement/contract.
[...]
This is going to be a big commitment if we decide to do it. In an all
volunteer organization, how will we do what needs to be done?
Folks,
Any further thoughts along these lines?
- Brian
9:51 p.m.
New subject: directly routed subnets
Why don't you suggest the rules that you would like to see for discussion?
I have initiated a review of the address delegation mechanisms fo
44.140/16 as part of a more or less complete restart of AMPRnet Sweden
anyway, trying to involve ssa.se.
- Bjorn
On 2012-03-14 22:30, Brian Kantor wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 01:09:03PM -0800, Brian Kantor
wrote:
I imagine we'll have to have rules and some
sort of binding agreement/contract.
[...]
This is going to be a big commitment if we decide to do it. In an all
volunteer organization, how will we do what needs to be done?
Folks,
Any further thoughts along these lines?
- Brian
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
10:39 p.m.
New subject: directly routed subnets
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:51:43PM +0100, Bjorn Pehrson wrote:
Why don't you suggest the rules that you would
like to see for discussion?
Wow. That's the problem, isn't it? How to maintain the network for ham radio
use and not waste it. I'd like to see it used for the public good - advancement
of technology, public service, that sort of thing.
I'd like to require that the netspace hams get is used
for ham radio, not sold, nonprofit, free, etc.
What else would we require of "clients"?
- Brian
10:49 p.m.
New subject: directly routed subnets
Pretty much impossible since it is not subject to Part 97 at all. Only the Gents
agreements that it be used for Amateur use only. Using it for something like HSMM-MESH is
probably safe since it routes via callsign. Not 100% but then any system is subject to
abouse.
Ronny Julian
K4RJJ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Kantor" <Brian(a)ucsd.edu>
To: "AMPRNet working group" <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 6:39:16 PM
Subject: Re: [44net] directly routed subnets
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:51:43PM +0100, Bjorn Pehrson wrote:
Why don't you suggest the rules that you would
like to see for discussion?
Wow. That's the problem, isn't it? How to maintain the network for ham radio
use and not waste it. I'd like to see it used for the public good - advancement
of technology, public service, that sort of thing.
I'd like to require that the netspace hams get is used
for ham radio, not sold, nonprofit, free, etc.
What else would we require of "clients"?
- Brian
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
15 Mar
15 Mar
3:34 a.m.
New subject: directly routed subnets
Well since I am the one that stirred the pot on this...let me give my $0.02.
I am guessing that some sort of ownership has been asserted by the
Non-Profit Brian formed. I would say that leasing the address ranges for
some nominal cost to offset the administrative costs of "Amateur Radio
Digital Communications". This would serve to support any necessary
hardware, software, ect required by ARDC. As a lease the ownership remains
with ARDC and could be revoked for violating the terms of the lease. Just
like an eviction as well as a period of time. This way people who were
assigned addressed 15years ago could not assert ownership. These are not
"ham radio frequencies" so the rules are up to the ARDC.
Just remember a non-profit does not mean no money it just means you must
spend it by the end of the year. Like Richard Stalman says "it is free as
in free speech not free as in free beer."
Bottom line I just want to seem them used by ham radio operators. How they
are used would need to be set in a policy.
Lin
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 6:49 PM, <k4rjj(a)comcast.net> wrote:
Pretty much impossible since it is not subject to Part
97 at all. Only
the Gents agreements that it be used for Amateur use only. Using it for
something like HSMM-MESH is probably safe since it routes via callsign.
Not 100% but then any system is subject to abouse.
Ronny Julian
K4RJJ
------------------------------
*From: *"Brian Kantor" <Brian(a)ucsd.edu>
*To: *"AMPRNet working group" <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu>
*Sent: *Wednesday, March 14, 2012 6:39:16 PM
*Subject: *Re: [44net] directly routed subnets
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:51:43PM +0100, Bjorn Pehrson wrote:
Why don't you suggest the rules that you
would like to see for
discussion?
Wow. That's the problem, isn't it? How to maintain the network for ham
radio
use and not waste it. I'd like to see it used for the public good -
advancement
of technology, public service, that sort of thing.
I'd like to require that the netspace hams get is used
for ham radio, not sold, nonprofit, free, etc.
What else would we require of "clients"?
- Brian
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
--
Lin Holcomb
Office: +1 404 806 5412
Mobile: +1 404 933 1595
Fax: +1 404 348 4250
<http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net> 
5:28 a.m.
New subject: directly routed subnets
Good evening,
I'm new here -- a quick introduction... Dan W4DSJ, I've been a ham for about a
year, but I do remember the days when I "knew" the folks who ran my ISP, and
they let me have a lot of fun with my own subnet. All I needed was a route in, and the
rest of my "mini-isp" was done on salvaged equipment running Linux and Solaris.
It wouldn't push more than 30kbps, but it worked, and... and man was that fun.
If I might jump in. Non-profit doesn't mean you have to spend anything. It just means
there are no "equity" owners of the corporation. Anything 44-net related could
easily qualify a public benefit corporation for 501(c)(3) status, given the purpose of
advancing public research, and the non-remuneration built into our FCC license class.
Granted, it's been 10 years since I did any 501(c)(3) stuff, but I doubt the
qualifications have changed significantly. There's really no limit to the amount of
money that can be made, spent, or retained, so long as it is used for the approved
purpose... a purpose which is already federally regulated.
But wait, there's more! Has anyone proposed that 3rd party routing service could be
considered a tax-deductible donation? It would be valued at its fair market equivalent,
and I betcha we'd only even use a fraction of what is provisioned. And, hey, it really
does support experiments in publically beneficial infrastructure. Just a thought. :)
DS Jameyson
W4DSJ
From: 44net-bounces+dsjameyson=dan247.com(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
[mailto:44net-bounces+dsjameyson=dan247.com@hamradio.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Lin Holcomb
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 8:34 PM
To: AMPRNet working group
Subject: Re: [44net] directly routed subnets
Well since I am the one that stirred the pot on this...let me give my $0.02.
I am guessing that some sort of ownership has been asserted by the Non-Profit Brian
formed. I would say that leasing the address ranges for some nominal cost to offset the
administrative costs of "Amateur Radio Digital Communications". This would
serve to support any necessary hardware, software, ect required by ARDC. As a lease the
ownership remains with ARDC and could be revoked for violating the terms of the lease.
Just like an eviction as well as a period of time. This way people who were assigned
addressed 15years ago could not assert ownership. These are not "ham radio
frequencies" so the rules are up to the ARDC.
Just remember a non-profit does not mean no money it just means you must spend it by the
end of the year. Like Richard Stalman says "it is free as in free speech not free as
in free beer."
Bottom line I just want to seem them used by ham radio operators. How they are used would
need to be set in a policy.
Lin
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 6:49 PM, <k4rjj@comcast.net<mailto:k4rjj@comcast.net>>
wrote:
Pretty much impossible since it is not subject to Part 97 at all. Only the Gents
agreements that it be used for Amateur use only. Using it for something like HSMM-MESH is
probably safe since it routes via callsign. Not 100% but then any system is subject to
abouse.
Ronny Julian
K4RJJ
________________________________
From: "Brian Kantor" <Brian@ucsd.edu<mailto:Brian@ucsd.edu>>
To: "AMPRNet working group"
<44net@hamradio.ucsd.edu<mailto:44net@hamradio.ucsd.edu>>
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 6:39:16 PM
Subject: Re: [44net] directly routed subnets
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:51:43PM +0100, Bjorn Pehrson wrote:
Why don't you suggest the rules that you would
like to see for discussion?
Wow. That's the problem, isn't it? How to maintain the network for ham radio
use and not waste it. I'd like to see it used for the public good - advancement
of technology, public service, that sort of thing.
I'd like to require that the netspace hams get is used
for ham radio, not sold, nonprofit, free, etc.
What else would we require of "clients"?
- Brian
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu<mailto:44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu>
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu<mailto:44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu>
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
--
Lin Holcomb
Office: +1 404 806 5412
Mobile: +1 404 933 1595
Fax: +1 404 348 4250
<http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net>
6:09 a.m.
New subject: directly routed subnets
I think that start charging for it is the wrong way to go.
Why not just assume that all hams want to maintain the network for ham
radio use and not waste it.
Until the opposite is proven, I believe that all hams would like to see
it used for the public good - advancement
of technology, public service, that sort of thing.
The requirement that the netspace hams get is used for ham radio, not
sold, nonprofit, free, etc. should be the first paragraph in the rule
set. There might be other issues to include in an Acceptable Use Policy.
This policy shpould also include reinforcement procedures and sanctions.
There should be a section of the rule set about multihoming. I think
this is a good idea but requires some agreements, e.g. intradomain
routing (iBGP)
What else should be included?
Bjorn
On 2012-03-15 06:28, Dan Jameyson wrote:
Good evening,
I'm new here -- a quick introduction... Dan W4DSJ, I've been a ham for
about a year, but I do remember the days when I "knew" the folks who
ran my ISP, and they let me have a lot of fun with my own subnet. All
I needed was a route in, and the rest of my "mini-isp" was done on
salvaged equipment running Linux and Solaris. It wouldn't push more
than 30kbps, but it worked, and... and man was that fun.
If I might jump in. Non-profit doesn't mean you have to spend
anything. It just means there are no "equity" owners of the
corporation. Anything 44-net related could easily qualify a public
benefit corporation for 501(c)(3) status, given the purpose of
advancing public research, and the non-remuneration built into our FCC
license class. Granted, it's been 10 years since I did any 501(c)(3)
stuff, but I doubt the qualifications have changed significantly.
There's really no limit to the amount of money that can be made,
spent, or retained, so long as it is used for the approved purpose...
a purpose which is already federally regulated.
But wait, there's more! Has anyone proposed that 3rd party routing
service could be considered a tax-deductible donation? It would be
valued at its fair market equivalent, and I betcha we'd only even use
a fraction of what is provisioned. And, hey, it really does support
experiments in publically beneficial infrastructure. Just a thought. :)
DS Jameyson
W4DSJ
*From:*44net-bounces+dsjameyson=dan247.com@hamradio.ucsd.edu
[mailto:44net-bounces+dsjameyson=dan247.com@hamradio.ucsd.edu] *On
Behalf Of *Lin Holcomb
*Sent:* Wednesday, March 14, 2012 8:34 PM
*To:* AMPRNet working group
*Subject:* Re: [44net] directly routed subnets
Well since I am the one that stirred the pot on this...let me give my
$0.02.
I am guessing that some sort of ownership has been asserted by the
Non-Profit Brian formed. I would say that leasing the address ranges
for some nominal cost to offset the administrative costs of "Amateur
Radio Digital Communications". This would serve to support any
necessary hardware, software, ect required by ARDC. As a lease the
ownership remains with ARDC and could be revoked for violating the
terms of the lease. Just like an eviction as well as a period of
time. This way people who were assigned addressed 15years ago could
not assert ownership. These are not "ham radio frequencies" so the
rules are up to the ARDC.
Just remember a non-profit does not mean no money it just means you
must spend it by the end of the year. Like Richard Stalman says "it
is free as in free speech not free as in free beer."
Bottom line I just want to seem them used by ham radio operators. How
they are used would need to be set in a policy.
Lin
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 6:49 PM, <k4rjj(a)comcast.net
<mailto:k4rjj@comcast.net>> wrote:
Pretty much impossible since it is not subject to Part 97 at all.
Only the Gents agreements that it be used for Amateur use only. Using
it for something like HSMM-MESH is probably safe since it routes via
callsign. Not 100% but then any system is subject to abouse.
Ronny Julian
K4RJJ
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: *"Brian Kantor" <Brian(a)ucsd.edu <mailto:Brian@ucsd.edu>>
*To: *"AMPRNet working group" <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
<mailto:44net@hamradio.ucsd.edu>>
*Sent: *Wednesday, March 14, 2012 6:39:16 PM
*Subject: *Re: [44net] directly routed subnets
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:51:43PM +0100, Bjorn Pehrson wrote:
Why don't you suggest the rules that you
would like to see for
discussion?
Wow. That's the problem, isn't it? How to maintain the network for
ham radio
use and not waste it. I'd like to see it used for the public good -
advancement
of technology, public service, that sort of thing.
I'd like to require that the netspace hams get is used
for ham radio, not sold, nonprofit, free, etc.
What else would we require of "clients"?
- Brian
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu <mailto:44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu>
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu <mailto:44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu>
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
--
Lin Holcomb
Office: +1 404 806 5412
Mobile: +1 404 933 1595
Fax: +1 404 348 4250
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
6:18 a.m.
New subject: directly routed subnets
Te delegations should be time limited and applications for re-delegation
should perhaps require demonstration of active acceptable use.
One way of demonstrating at least some sort of activity is that the
addresses (or x% of the delegated space) are pingable.
On 2012-03-15 07:09, Bjorn Pehrson wrote:
I think that start charging for it is the wrong way to
go.
Why not just assume that all hams want to maintain the network for ham
radio use and not waste it.
Until the opposite is proven, I believe that all hams would like to
see it used for the public good - advancement
of technology, public service, that sort of thing.
The requirement that the netspace hams get is used for ham radio, not
sold, nonprofit, free, etc. should be the first paragraph in the rule
set. There might be other issues to include in an Acceptable Use
Policy. This policy shpould also include reinforcement procedures and
sanctions.
There should be a section of the rule set about multihoming. I think
this is a good idea but requires some agreements, e.g. intradomain
routing (iBGP)
What else should be included?
Bjorn
On 2012-03-15 06:28, Dan Jameyson wrote:
Good evening,
I'm new here -- a quick introduction... Dan W4DSJ, I've been a ham
for about a year, but I do remember the days when I "knew" the folks
who ran my ISP, and they let me have a lot of fun with my own subnet.
All I needed was a route in, and the rest of my "mini-isp" was done
on salvaged equipment running Linux and Solaris. It wouldn't push
more than 30kbps, but it worked, and... and man was that fun.
If I might jump in. Non-profit doesn't mean you have to spend
anything. It just means there are no "equity" owners of the
corporation. Anything 44-net related could easily qualify a public
benefit corporation for 501(c)(3) status, given the purpose of
advancing public research, and the non-remuneration built into our
FCC license class. Granted, it's been 10 years since I did any
501(c)(3) stuff, but I doubt the qualifications have changed
significantly. There's really no limit to the amount of money that
can be made, spent, or retained, so long as it is used for the
approved purpose... a purpose which is already federally regulated.
But wait, there's more! Has anyone proposed that 3rd party routing
service could be considered a tax-deductible donation? It would be
valued at its fair market equivalent, and I betcha we'd only even use
a fraction of what is provisioned. And, hey, it really does support
experiments in publically beneficial infrastructure. Just a thought. :)
DS Jameyson
W4DSJ
*From:*44net-bounces+dsjameyson=dan247.com@hamradio.ucsd.edu
[mailto:44net-bounces+dsjameyson=dan247.com@hamradio.ucsd.edu] *On
Behalf Of *Lin Holcomb
*Sent:* Wednesday, March 14, 2012 8:34 PM
*To:* AMPRNet working group
*Subject:* Re: [44net] directly routed subnets
Well since I am the one that stirred the pot on this...let me give my
$0.02.
I am guessing that some sort of ownership has been asserted by the
Non-Profit Brian formed. I would say that leasing the address ranges
for some nominal cost to offset the administrative costs of "Amateur
Radio Digital Communications". This would serve to support any
necessary hardware, software, ect required by ARDC. As a lease the
ownership remains with ARDC and could be revoked for violating the
terms of the lease. Just like an eviction as well as a period of
time. This way people who were assigned addressed 15years ago could
not assert ownership. These are not "ham radio frequencies" so the
rules are up to the ARDC.
Just remember a non-profit does not mean no money it just means you
must spend it by the end of the year. Like Richard Stalman says "it
is free as in free speech not free as in free beer."
Bottom line I just want to seem them used by ham radio operators.
How they are used would need to be set in a policy.
Lin
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 6:49 PM, <k4rjj(a)comcast.net
<mailto:k4rjj@comcast.net>> wrote:
Pretty much impossible since it is not subject to Part 97 at all.
Only the Gents agreements that it be used for Amateur use only.
Using it for something like HSMM-MESH is probably safe since it
routes via callsign. Not 100% but then any system is subject to abouse.
Ronny Julian
K4RJJ
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: *"Brian Kantor" <Brian(a)ucsd.edu <mailto:Brian@ucsd.edu>>
*To: *"AMPRNet working group" <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
<mailto:44net@hamradio.ucsd.edu>>
*Sent: *Wednesday, March 14, 2012 6:39:16 PM
*Subject: *Re: [44net] directly routed subnets
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:51:43PM +0100, Bjorn Pehrson wrote:
Why don't you suggest the rules that you
would like to see for
discussion?
Wow. That's the problem, isn't it? How to maintain the network for
ham radio
use and not waste it. I'd like to see it used for the public good -
advancement
of technology, public service, that sort of thing.
I'd like to require that the netspace hams get is used
for ham radio, not sold, nonprofit, free, etc.
What else would we require of "clients"?
- Brian
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu <mailto:44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu>
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu <mailto:44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu>
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
--
Lin Holcomb
Office: +1 404 806 5412
Mobile: +1 404 933 1595
Fax: +1 404 348 4250
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
6:47 a.m.
New subject: directly routed subnets
It would be nice to prompt some cooperation, perhaps in a contest form,
to establish intradomain ham radio links towards the original goal of
AMPRnet to establish global intradomain connectivity. Other kind of
contests could be pushing the link reach, bitrate, energy consumption,...
On 2012-03-15 07:18, Bjorn Pehrson wrote:
Te delegations should be time limited and applications
for re-delegation
should perhaps require demonstration of active acceptable use.
One way of demonstrating at least some sort of activity is that the
addresses (or x% of the delegated space) are pingable.
On 2012-03-15 07:09, Bjorn Pehrson wrote:
I think that start charging for it is the wrong
way to go.
Why not just assume that all hams want to maintain the network for ham
radio use and not waste it.
Until the opposite is proven, I believe that all hams would like to
see it used for the public good - advancement
of technology, public service, that sort of thing.
The requirement that the netspace hams get is used for ham radio, not
sold, nonprofit, free, etc. should be the first paragraph in the rule
set. There might be other issues to include in an Acceptable Use
Policy. This policy shpould also include reinforcement procedures and
sanctions.
There should be a section of the rule set about multihoming. I think
this is a good idea but requires some agreements, e.g. intradomain
routing (iBGP)
What else should be included?
Bjorn
On 2012-03-15 06:28, Dan Jameyson wrote:
Good evening,
I'm new here -- a quick introduction... Dan W4DSJ, I've been a ham
for about a year, but I do remember the days when I "knew" the folks
who ran my ISP, and they let me have a lot of fun with my own subnet.
All I needed was a route in, and the rest of my "mini-isp" was done
on salvaged equipment running Linux and Solaris. It wouldn't push
more than 30kbps, but it worked, and... and man was that fun.
If I might jump in. Non-profit doesn’t mean you have to spend
anything. It just means there are no "equity" owners of the
corporation. Anything 44-net related could easily qualify a public
benefit corporation for 501(c)(3) status, given the purpose of
advancing public research, and the non-remuneration built into our
FCC license class. Granted, it's been 10 years since I did any
501(c)(3) stuff, but I doubt the qualifications have changed
significantly. There's really no limit to the amount of money that
can be made, spent, or retained, so long as it is used for the
approved purpose... a purpose which is already federally regulated.
But wait, there's more! Has anyone proposed that 3rd party routing
service could be considered a tax-deductible donation? It would be
valued at its fair market equivalent, and I betcha we'd only even use
a fraction of what is provisioned. And, hey, it really does support
experiments in publically beneficial infrastructure. Just a thought. :)
DS Jameyson
W4DSJ
*From:*44net-bounces+dsjameyson=dan247.com@hamradio.ucsd.edu
[mailto:44net-bounces+dsjameyson=dan247.com@hamradio.ucsd.edu] *On
Behalf Of *Lin Holcomb
*Sent:* Wednesday, March 14, 2012 8:34 PM
*To:* AMPRNet working group
*Subject:* Re: [44net] directly routed subnets
Well since I am the one that stirred the pot on this...let me give my
$0.02.
I am guessing that some sort of ownership has been asserted by the
Non-Profit Brian formed. I would say that leasing the address ranges
for some nominal cost to offset the administrative costs of "Amateur
Radio Digital Communications". This would serve to support any
necessary hardware, software, ect required by ARDC. As a lease the
ownership remains with ARDC and could be revoked for violating the
terms of the lease. Just like an eviction as well as a period of
time. This way people who were assigned addressed 15years ago could
not assert ownership. These are not "ham radio frequencies" so the
rules are up to the ARDC.
Just remember a non-profit does not mean no money it just means you
must spend it by the end of the year. Like Richard Stalman says "it
is free as in free speech not free as in free beer."
Bottom line I just want to seem them used by ham radio operators. How
they are used would need to be set in a policy.
Lin
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 6:49 PM, <k4rjj(a)comcast.net
<mailto:k4rjj@comcast.net>> wrote:
Pretty much impossible since it is not subject to Part 97 at all.
Only the Gents agreements that it be used for Amateur use only. Using
it for something like HSMM-MESH is probably safe since it routes via
callsign. Not 100% but then any system is subject to abouse.
Ronny Julian
K4RJJ
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: *"Brian Kantor" <Brian(a)ucsd.edu <mailto:Brian@ucsd.edu>>
*To: *"AMPRNet working group" <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
<mailto:44net@hamradio.ucsd.edu>>
*Sent: *Wednesday, March 14, 2012 6:39:16 PM
*Subject: *Re: [44net] directly routed subnets
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:51:43PM +0100, Bjorn Pehrson wrote:
Why don't you suggest the rules that you
would like to see for
discussion?
Wow. That's the problem, isn't it? How to maintain the network for
ham radio
use and not waste it. I'd like to see it used for the public good -
advancement
of technology, public service, that sort of thing.
I'd like to require that the netspace hams get is used
for ham radio, not sold, nonprofit, free, etc.
What else would we require of "clients"?
- Brian
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu <mailto:44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu>
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu <mailto:44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu>
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
--
Lin Holcomb
Office: +1 404 806 5412
Mobile: +1 404 933 1595
Fax: +1 404 348 4250
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
7:11 a.m.
New subject: directly routed subnets
Oh yes, agree.
It's worth keeping for ham licensed use. As far as "non-profit" dynamics,
I'm more thinking if arrangements would ever need to be made with a major network
provider. That actually speaks to the multi-homing concept. By way of background, I'm
getting into the old-school "mainframe" theory of virtualization, and one
elegance I have come to appreciate, is how easy it is to separate network traffic. Large
IT departments use it to maintain security and vendor license policies; that same
technique can be used to segregate "licensed" RF-derived traffic from
"unlicensed" traffic. It's a great tool, but like everything else in our
precious microcosm, it all comes down to the honesty of the ham operators.
Regarding the delegations (which you mentioned in a note after this one), I like the idea
-- but, enforcement of such IT policies necessitates monitoring infrastructure (and its
back-cataloging and databasing), bandwidth to service that monitoring, and people to run
and maintain infrastructure, etc. That's a big cost-sink for what should be trusted to
operators maintain best engineering practices. IMHO, I'm thinking that as an ideal,
every IP should be routable via a licensed RF interface -- something on our own
HF/VHF/UHF/microwave band plan. But, that's a purist ideal to strive for, not
necessarily a practicality.
On the other note (regarding the radio links), I've recently become very interested in
the legacy commercial microwave networks -- they were everywhere 20 years ago, but around
here (East San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA) they have been phased out in favor of
fiber-optic technology. The microwave technology is still very powerful, and has
advantages in portability versus land-lines. That's an expensive prospect for an
individual... but it's still out there, within our band plan, and could be very useful
as a back-up to "Mother Bell" and an alternate way to integrate public safety
infrastructure (i.e., multiple police, fire, and medical systems). I really like the idea
of pushing to put up and improve real RF links -- that just made my day, right there!
DS Jameyson
W4DSJ
From: 44net-bounces+dsjameyson=dan247.com(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
[mailto:44net-bounces+dsjameyson=dan247.com@hamradio.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Bjorn Pehrson
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 11:10 PM
To: AMPRNet working group
Subject: Re: [44net] directly routed subnets
I think that start charging for it is the wrong way to go.
Why not just assume that all hams want to maintain the network for ham radio use and not
waste it.
Until the opposite is proven, I believe that all hams would like to see it used for the
public good - advancement
of technology, public service, that sort of thing.
The requirement that the netspace hams get is used for ham radio, not sold, nonprofit,
free, etc. should be the first paragraph in the rule set. There might be other issues to
include in an Acceptable Use Policy. This policy shpould also include reinforcement
procedures and sanctions.
There should be a section of the rule set about multihoming. I think this is a good idea
but requires some agreements, e.g. intradomain routing (iBGP)
What else should be included?
Bjorn
On 2012-03-15 06:28, Dan Jameyson wrote:
Good evening,
I'm new here -- a quick introduction... Dan W4DSJ, I've been a ham for about a
year, but I do remember the days when I "knew" the folks who ran my ISP, and
they let me have a lot of fun with my own subnet. All I needed was a route in, and the
rest of my "mini-isp" was done on salvaged equipment running Linux and Solaris.
It wouldn't push more than 30kbps, but it worked, and... and man was that fun.
If I might jump in. Non-profit doesn't mean you have to spend anything. It just means
there are no "equity" owners of the corporation. Anything 44-net related could
easily qualify a public benefit corporation for 501(c)(3) status, given the purpose of
advancing public research, and the non-remuneration built into our FCC license class.
Granted, it's been 10 years since I did any 501(c)(3) stuff, but I doubt the
qualifications have changed significantly. There's really no limit to the amount of
money that can be made, spent, or retained, so long as it is used for the approved
purpose... a purpose which is already federally regulated.
But wait, there's more! Has anyone proposed that 3rd party routing service could be
considered a tax-deductible donation? It would be valued at its fair market equivalent,
and I betcha we'd only even use a fraction of what is provisioned. And, hey, it really
does support experiments in publically beneficial infrastructure. Just a thought. :)
DS Jameyson
W4DSJ
From:
44net-bounces+dsjameyson=dan247.com@hamradio.ucsd.edu<mailto:44net-bounces+dsjameyson=dan247.com@hamradio.ucsd.edu>
[mailto:44net-bounces+dsjameyson=dan247.com@hamradio.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Lin Holcomb
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 8:34 PM
To: AMPRNet working group
Subject: Re: [44net] directly routed subnets
Well since I am the one that stirred the pot on this...let me give my $0.02.
I am guessing that some sort of ownership has been asserted by the Non-Profit Brian
formed. I would say that leasing the address ranges for some nominal cost to offset the
administrative costs of "Amateur Radio Digital Communications". This would
serve to support any necessary hardware, software, ect required by ARDC. As a lease the
ownership remains with ARDC and could be revoked for violating the terms of the lease.
Just like an eviction as well as a period of time. This way people who were assigned
addressed 15years ago could not assert ownership. These are not "ham radio
frequencies" so the rules are up to the ARDC.
Just remember a non-profit does not mean no money it just means you must spend it by the
end of the year. Like Richard Stalman says "it is free as in free speech not free as
in free beer."
Bottom line I just want to seem them used by ham radio operators. How they are used would
need to be set in a policy.
Lin
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 6:49 PM, <k4rjj@comcast.net<mailto:k4rjj@comcast.net>>
wrote:
Pretty much impossible since it is not subject to Part 97 at all. Only the Gents
agreements that it be used for Amateur use only. Using it for something like HSMM-MESH is
probably safe since it routes via callsign. Not 100% but then any system is subject to
abouse.
Ronny Julian
K4RJJ
________________________________
From: "Brian Kantor" <Brian@ucsd.edu<mailto:Brian@ucsd.edu>>
To: "AMPRNet working group"
<44net@hamradio.ucsd.edu<mailto:44net@hamradio.ucsd.edu>>
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 6:39:16 PM
Subject: Re: [44net] directly routed subnets
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:51:43PM +0100, Bjorn Pehrson wrote:
Why don't you suggest the rules that you would
like to see for discussion?
Wow. That's the problem, isn't it? How to maintain the network for ham radio
use and not waste it. I'd like to see it used for the public good - advancement
of technology, public service, that sort of thing.
I'd like to require that the netspace hams get is used
for ham radio, not sold, nonprofit, free, etc.
What else would we require of "clients"?
- Brian
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu<mailto:44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu>
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu<mailto:44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu>
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
--
Lin Holcomb
Office: +1 404 806 5412
Mobile: +1 404 933 1595
Fax: +1 404 348 4250
<http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net>
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu<mailto:44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu>
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
8:17 a.m.
New subject: directly routed subnets
When talking about arrangements with major network providers, since I
come from an academic environment and often use amateur resources for
academic experiments, I am thinking of the global research and higher
education networks, like Internet2 in the US, RedClara in Latin America,
GÉANT in Europe, TEIN and others in Asia etc.
I think it is worth trying making the case for them to route subnets out
of 44/8. I am prepared to take a discussion over here about the
possibility to route the Nordic country subnets via Nordunet/GÉANT and
some African subnets via the corresponding regional networks in Africa.
I am working with African partners on environment data collection for
research for example.
The enforcement could perhaps also be delegated to trusted
regional/national organisations. Since we have a change in coordination
of the Swedish subnet 44.140/16, I am discussing with the Swedish
national Radioamateur organisation, which has a delegation from the
Swedish telecom regulator to issue radio amateur licences (www.ssa.se),
to be the supervisor of the use here in Sweden, re-delegating the work
involved with time-limited agreements with interested local clubs and
dedicated individuals.
Bjorn
On 2012-03-15 08:11, Dan Jameyson wrote:
Oh yes, agree.
It's worth keeping for ham licensed use. As far as "non-profit"
dynamics, I'm more thinking if arrangements would ever need to be made
with a major network provider. That actually speaks to the
multi-homing concept. By way of background, I'm getting into the
old-school "mainframe" theory of virtualization, and one elegance I
have come to appreciate, is how easy it is to separate network
traffic. Large IT departments use it to maintain security and vendor
license policies; that same technique can be used to segregate
"licensed" RF-derived traffic from "unlicensed" traffic. It's a
great
tool, but like everything else in our precious microcosm, it all comes
down to the honesty of the ham operators.
Regarding the delegations (which you mentioned in a note after this
one), I like the idea -- but, enforcement of such IT policies
necessitates monitoring infrastructure (and its back-cataloging and
databasing), bandwidth to service that monitoring, and people to run
and maintain infrastructure, etc. That's a big cost-sink for what
should be trusted to operators maintain best engineering practices.
IMHO, I'm thinking that as an ideal, every IP should be routable via a
licensed RF interface -- something on our own HF/VHF/UHF/microwave
band plan. But, that's a purist ideal to strive for, not necessarily a
practicality.
On the other note (regarding the radio links), I've recently become
very interested in the legacy commercial microwave networks -- they
were everywhere 20 years ago, but around here (East San Francisco Bay
Area, California, USA) they have been phased out in favor of
fiber-optic technology. The microwave technology is still very
powerful, and has advantages in portability versus land-lines. That's
an expensive prospect for an individual... but it's still out there,
within our band plan, and could be very useful as a back-up to "Mother
Bell" and an alternate way to integrate public safety infrastructure
(i.e., multiple police, fire, and medical systems). I really like the
idea of pushing to put up and improve real RF links -- that just made
my day, right there!
DS Jameyson
W4DSJ
*From:*44net-bounces+dsjameyson=dan247.com@hamradio.ucsd.edu
[mailto:44net-bounces+dsjameyson=dan247.com@hamradio.ucsd.edu] *On
Behalf Of * Bjorn Pehrson
*Sent:* Wednesday, March 14, 2012 11:10 PM
*To:* AMPRNet working group
*Subject:* Re: [44net] directly routed subnets
I think that start charging for it is the wrong way to go.
Why not just assume that all hams want to maintain the network for ham
radio use and not waste it.
Until the opposite is proven, I believe that all hams would like to
see it used for the public good - advancement
of technology, public service, that sort of thing.
The requirement that the netspace hams get is used for ham radio, not
sold, nonprofit, free, etc. should be the first paragraph in the rule
set. There might be other issues to include in an Acceptable Use
Policy. This policy shpould also include reinforcement procedures and
sanctions.
There should be a section of the rule set about multihoming. I think
this is a good idea but requires some agreements, e.g. intradomain
routing (iBGP)
What else should be included?
Bjorn
On 2012-03-15 06:28, Dan Jameyson wrote:
Good evening,
I'm new here -- a quick introduction... Dan W4DSJ, I've been a ham for
about a year, but I do remember the days when I "knew" the folks who
ran my ISP, and they let me have a lot of fun with my own subnet. All
I needed was a route in, and the rest of my "mini-isp" was done on
salvaged equipment running Linux and Solaris. It wouldn't push more
than 30kbps, but it worked, and... and man was that fun.
If I might jump in. Non-profit doesn't mean you have to spend
anything. It just means there are no "equity" owners of the
corporation. Anything 44-net related could easily qualify a public
benefit corporation for 501(c)(3) status, given the purpose of
advancing public research, and the non-remuneration built into our FCC
license class. Granted, it's been 10 years since I did any 501(c)(3)
stuff, but I doubt the qualifications have changed significantly.
There's really no limit to the amount of money that can be made,
spent, or retained, so long as it is used for the approved purpose...
a purpose which is already federally regulated.
But wait, there's more! Has anyone proposed that 3rd party routing
service could be considered a tax-deductible donation? It would be
valued at its fair market equivalent, and I betcha we'd only even use
a fraction of what is provisioned. And, hey, it really does support
experiments in publically beneficial infrastructure. Just a thought. :)
DS Jameyson
W4DSJ
*From:*44net-bounces+dsjameyson=dan247.com@hamradio.ucsd.edu
<mailto:44net-bounces+dsjameyson=dan247.com@hamradio.ucsd.edu>
[mailto:44net-bounces+dsjameyson=dan247.com@hamradio.ucsd.edu] *On
Behalf Of *Lin Holcomb
*Sent:* Wednesday, March 14, 2012 8:34 PM
*To:* AMPRNet working group
*Subject:* Re: [44net] directly routed subnets
Well since I am the one that stirred the pot on this...let me give my
$0.02.
I am guessing that some sort of ownership has been asserted by the
Non-Profit Brian formed. I would say that leasing the address ranges
for some nominal cost to offset the administrative costs of "Amateur
Radio Digital Communications". This would serve to support any
necessary hardware, software, ect required by ARDC. As a lease the
ownership remains with ARDC and could be revoked for violating the
terms of the lease. Just like an eviction as well as a period of
time. This way people who were assigned addressed 15years ago could
not assert ownership. These are not "ham radio frequencies" so the
rules are up to the ARDC.
Just remember a non-profit does not mean no money it just means you
must spend it by the end of the year. Like Richard Stalman says "it
is free as in free speech not free as in free beer."
Bottom line I just want to seem them used by ham radio operators. How
they are used would need to be set in a policy.
Lin
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 6:49 PM, <k4rjj(a)comcast.net
<mailto:k4rjj@comcast.net>> wrote:
Pretty much impossible since it is not subject to Part 97 at all.
Only the Gents agreements that it be used for Amateur use only. Using
it for something like HSMM-MESH is probably safe since it routes via
callsign. Not 100% but then any system is subject to abouse.
Ronny Julian
K4RJJ
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: *"Brian Kantor" <Brian(a)ucsd.edu <mailto:Brian@ucsd.edu>>
*To: *"AMPRNet working group" <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
<mailto:44net@hamradio.ucsd.edu>>
*Sent: *Wednesday, March 14, 2012 6:39:16 PM
*Subject: *Re: [44net] directly routed subnets
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:51:43PM +0100, Bjorn Pehrson wrote:
Why don't you suggest the rules that you
would like to see for
discussion?
Wow. That's the problem, isn't it? How to maintain the network for
ham radio
use and not waste it. I'd like to see it used for the public good -
advancement
of technology, public service, that sort of thing.
I'd like to require that the netspace hams get is used
for ham radio, not sold, nonprofit, free, etc.
What else would we require of "clients"?
- Brian
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu <mailto:44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu>
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu <mailto:44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu>
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
--
Lin Holcomb
Office: +1 404 806 5412
Mobile: +1 404 933 1595
Fax: +1 404 348 4250
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu <mailto:44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu>
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
8:20 a.m.
New subject: directly routed subnets
When talking about arrangements with major network providers, since I
come from an academic environment and often use amateur resources for
academic experiments, I am thinking of the global research and higher
education networks, like Internet2 in the US, RedClara in Latin America,
GÉANT in Europe, TEIN and others in Asia etc.
I think it is worth trying making the case for them to route subnets out
of 44/8. I am prepared to take a discussion over here about the
possibility to route the Nordic country subnets via Nordunet/GÉANT and
some African subnets via the corresponding regional networks in Africa.
I am working with African partners on environment data collection for
research for example.
The enforcement could perhaps also be delegated to trusted
regional/national organisations. Since we have a change in coordination
of the Swedish subnet 44.140/16, I am discussing with the Swedish
national Radioamateur organisation, which has a delegation from the
Swedish telecom regulator to issue radio amateur licences (www.ssa.se),
to be the supervisor of the use here in Sweden, re-delegating the work
involved with time-limited agreements with interested local clubs and
dedicated individuals.
Bjorn
On 2012-03-15 08:11, Dan Jameyson wrote:
Oh yes, agree.
It's worth keeping for ham licensed use. As far as "non-profit"
dynamics, I'm more thinking if arrangements would ever need to be made
with a major network provider. That actually speaks to the
multi-homing concept. By way of background, I'm getting into the
old-school "mainframe" theory of virtualization, and one elegance I
have come to appreciate, is how easy it is to separate network
traffic. Large IT departments use it to maintain security and vendor
license policies; that same technique can be used to segregate
"licensed" RF-derived traffic from "unlicensed" traffic. It's a
great
tool, but like everything else in our precious microcosm, it all comes
down to the honesty of the ham operators.
Regarding the delegations (which you mentioned in a note after this
one), I like the idea -- but, enforcement of such IT policies
necessitates monitoring infrastructure (and its back-cataloging and
databasing), bandwidth to service that monitoring, and people to run
and maintain infrastructure, etc. That's a big cost-sink for what
should be trusted to operators maintain best engineering practices.
IMHO, I'm thinking that as an ideal, every IP should be routable via a
licensed RF interface -- something on our own HF/VHF/UHF/microwave
band plan. But, that's a purist ideal to strive for, not necessarily a
practicality.
On the other note (regarding the radio links), I've recently become
very interested in the legacy commercial microwave networks -- they
were everywhere 20 years ago, but around here (East San Francisco Bay
Area, California, USA) they have been phased out in favor of
fiber-optic technology. The microwave technology is still very
powerful, and has advantages in portability versus land-lines. That's
an expensive prospect for an individual... but it's still out there,
within our band plan, and could be very useful as a back-up to "Mother
Bell" and an alternate way to integrate public safety infrastructure
(i.e., multiple police, fire, and medical systems). I really like the
idea of pushing to put up and improve real RF links -- that just made
my day, right there!
DS Jameyson
W4DSJ
16 Mar
16 Mar
12:52 a.m.
New subject: directly routed subnets
One thought that this could be broken down by (BGP) announcing of address space and usage
of address space.
In the case of announcing, it should be expected that the bar should be set at least what
ARIN expects in announcing of address space that you be multi-homed. I would also add
that the person/company should have some sort of on-call staff that can be reached 24x7 in
case there are problems with the BGP announcement.
Tim
On Mar 14, 2012, at 2:51 PM, Bjorn Pehrson wrote:
Why don't you suggest the rules that you would
like to see for discussion?
I have initiated a review of the address delegation mechanisms fo 44.140/16 as part of a
more or less complete restart of AMPRnet Sweden anyway, trying to involve ssa.se.
- Bjorn
On 2012-03-14 22:30, Brian Kantor wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 01:09:03PM -0800, Brian
Kantor wrote:
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net I imagine we'll have to have rules and some
sort of binding agreement/contract.
[...]
This is going to be a big commitment if we decide to do it. In an all
volunteer organization, how will we do what needs to be done?
Folks,
Any further thoughts along these lines?
- Brian
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
8 Jun
8 Jun
3:29 a.m.
New subject: directly routed subnets
I'm with Tim on these issues and I'm going to join #44net in just a moment.
Sent from my PDP-11
On Mar 6, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Tim Osburn <44net(a)osburn.com> wrote:
Brian and All,
I always thought it was a waste of a routable /8 to not have it routed on the
Internet, otherwise why are people just not using IANA space instead? However, if it is to
be routed on the internet I think some ground rules must be established of what is and is
not acceptable and penalties for not following the rules and established guidelines.
Additionally, and I bring this up again, a RWHOIS server should/must be used (tied in
with ARIN on the 44/8 allocation) so that people can query specific address space that
will return the contact/owner of whatever space is being advertised for whatever reason.
Additionally, IRR entries should also be required for anyone wanting to advertise space
via BGP. Those should be some common sence polices that need to be followed at the very
minimum.
Obviously nothing smaller then a /24 should be advertised on the internet as most Tier
1 carriers will block any address space that is smaller in their BGP configs. I don't
know what the whole breakup of space looks like within each coordinator's /16 space
(for those that have a /16 of space), but I would think there surely is space in each that
could be a usable /24 or larger that could be utilized for that. Alternatively there seems
to be a lot of space at the upper end of the 44 block that could be used for internet
routed blocks if we wanted to use that first?
IP Space justification will be whole issue within it's self as well, because if
you only REALLY need /28 or /27 of IP's, one will still need to advertise a /24.
Perhaps who ever advertises space via BGP should accept the condition that if only a
portion of the advertise space is being used that you will accept and allow another person
needing the available space so that it's not wasted. This could be tracked and
allocated via the rwhois server in conjunction with entries in IRR.
UCSD can still advertise the 44/8, and of course if anyone advertises a more specific
route, that will be preferred of the larger aggregate.
Be nice if we were all on a IRC chat channel to bounce ideas around? If anyone is
interested, how about channel #44net on IRC server network freenode (irc.freenode.net).
I'm on there now.
Tim Osburn
www.osburn.com
206.812.6214
W7RSZ
On Tue, 6 Mar 2012, Brian Kantor wrote:
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 11:14:57 -0800
From: Brian Kantor <Brian(a)ucsd.edu>
Reply-To: AMPRNet working group <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu>
To: 44net(a)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(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
4342
days inactive
4436
days old
28 comments
12 participants
participants (12)
-
Bjorn Pehrson -
Bjorn Pehrson -
Brian Kantor -
C.J. Adams-Collier -
Dan Jameyson -
Elias Basse -
Elias V. Basse III
-
k4rjj＠comcast.net -
K7VE - John -
Lin Holcomb -
Tim Osburn -
Tim Pozar