Interesting reading!
I too would like to see a routed approach - all this clumsy tunnelling house of cards junk is never going to be reliable.
The overly-managed approach doesn't help either. It needs to be far simpler to manage a /24 than what we have now. All the legal speak in that "contract" can get binned too.
As far as outdoor links are concerned - why do you not use the Ubiquiti 2.4,3.3, and 5.8Ghz gear? It goes really really over long distances even without external amps, and will happily run in the ham bands.
Steve
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 9:00 AM, 44net-request@hamradio.ucsd.edu wrote:
Send 44Net mailing list submissions to 44net@hamradio.ucsd.edu
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to 44net-request@hamradio.ucsd.edu
You can reach the person managing the list at 44net-owner@hamradio.ucsd.edu
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of 44Net digest..."
Today's Topics:
- Re: amprnet portal (Bryan Fields)
- Re: amprnet portal (kb9mwr@gmail.com)
Message: 1 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 18:09:57 -0500 From: Bryan Fields Bryan@bryanfields.net To: AMPRNet working group 44net@hamradio.ucsd.edu Subject: Re: [44net] amprnet portal Message-ID: 52E595C5.9090303@bryanfields.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 1/26/14 2:20 PM, kb9mwr@gmail.com wrote:
It would be interesting to hear more about how those other BGP announced chunks of 44net are using the space.
My segment 44.98.254.0/24 is being used for one PtP data link now, and some asterisk based repeater controllers. I have email for kb9mci.net on it (but need to get SWIP/PTR going Brian ;).
My intent is to fire up some of the doodle labs 23cm link cards as we get another repeater site and link it over on that space. As this grows over the next couple years it will be quite a high speed data network with VoIP as the primary purpose. Doing all the RF links in the ham bands is part of the fun. (anyone have a OFDM rated 20-30 watt amp for 23cm that's not $2k?)
One of the pet peeves I've have is not being able to access the other AMPR net space with out tunnels. I think tunnels are just an ugly hack IMO. I'd like to see us transition into more of a regionally routed network, rather than the few BGP nets and UCSD gateway. Well aware of how much time this would take I'm not ready to write up a proposal just yet (ampRFC?).
If anyone wants a subnet I'd be happy to route it to you, as I'm not using the whole /24 and won't be for some time. Global routing policies being what they are, a /24 is the smallest subnet you can announce.
My interest lies in high speed networks, and see little to no value in 9600 baud IP networks in 2014 :)
73's
-- Bryan Fields
727-409-1194 - Voice 727-214-2508 - Fax http://bryanfields.net
Message: 2 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 12:06:01 -0600 From: kb9mwr@gmail.com To: "44net@hamradio.ucsd.edu" 44net@hamradio.ucsd.edu Subject: Re: [44net] amprnet portal Message-ID: < CAK4XxyT5f_UxV5CpzHRX9O0QEtUbGxD0txexZHGRDQTTdA_9yg@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Brian,
Interesting, thanks for sharing.
Amplifiers are something I really think the ham community needs to think about.
They exist, but like you say, but at outrageous prices. i.e.:
http://www.shireeninc.com/300-500mhz-20-watts-outdoor-amplifier/
I have been reading Dubus magazine (focused on microwave), hoping to read more data oriented construction articles.
I am much in the same line of thinking. 1200 and 9600 is really not worth re-deploying in 2014. The regulatory landscape needs some major changes so that manufactures can put something different in the hands of many.
Steve
44Net mailing list 44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
End of 44Net Digest, Vol 3, Issue 19
I too would like to see a routed approach - all this clumsy tunnelling house of cards junk is never going to be reliable.
Seems to me it's the other way... With tunnel's, if one station goes down all the other gateways persist. With the BPG routed system, the gateway is another weak link in the routing chain. What happens if the BPG gateway goes down - every station down stream is isolated. I've heard there's provisions for alternate gateways - but is that being used here?
The idea, that was mentioned here a few months ago, of tunnel gateways dynamically rip (or ?) announcing their existence to fellow gateways is intriguing..
73 Bill, WA7NWP
If the BGP is in a 'hardened' data center then its probability of going down is greatly reduced over the random tunnel server running on a 20 year old computer in somebody's basement.
You can multi-home BGP networks for higher reliability. It all depends on how the network is engineered. This is a volunteer effort, with distributed network design and management.
However, I think a truly useful network of Amateur Radio related technologies is better served via high bandwidth infrastructure (99.99% of the time). Ingenuity takes over for the rest (0.01%).
BGP'ed regional networks provide more portals into the larger Internet and can support smaller networks via VPN and Tunnels.
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Bill Vodall wa7nwp@gmail.com wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________
I too would like to see a routed approach - all this clumsy tunnelling house of cards junk is never going to be reliable.
Seems to me it's the other way... With tunnel's, if one station goes down all the other gateways persist. With the BPG routed system, the gateway is another weak link in the routing chain. What happens if the BPG gateway goes down - every station down stream is isolated. I've heard there's provisions for alternate gateways - but is that being used here?
The idea, that was mentioned here a few months ago, of tunnel gateways dynamically rip (or ?) announcing their existence to fellow gateways is intriguing..
73 Bill, WA7NWP _________________________________________ 44Net mailing list 44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
------------------------------ 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
Greetings;
On Mon, 2014-01-27 at 15:49 -0800, K7VE - John spake:
Just my <$0.02>
If the BGP is in a 'hardened' data center then its probability of going down is greatly reduced over the random tunnel server running on a 20 year old computer in somebody's basement.
This isn't a single tunnel going to a single tunnel, our current design is that each point on the 44/8 network is a direct point to point route. The fastest route from here to there is a direct line, no matter where on 44/8 I go since I'm using a tunnel.
We have already suffered (key word!) outages because of BGP or the like based issues where areas have suffered from various reasonings (router gone bad, route fat-fingered, etc). In the commercial world this works very well but we keep insisting we're a glorified ISP here and we're servicing commercial based IP sites.
While I agree, any new piece of hardware in a "hardened" data center/NOC/etc would be a great place to house something, I'm extremely confused as to how BGP will fix/reboot/replace that old PC in someone's basement that's gone down. Will someone -=please=- explain this to me?
Now if the issue is an old gateway that's servicing a larger block running some of the high speed wifi, then it's already a flaw of those creating this network by allowing inferior equipment to host their network rather than creating a gateway at a "hardened" data center... not the fault of a tunnel.
BGP'ed regional networks provide more portals into the larger Internet and can support smaller networks via VPN and Tunnels.
My upstream already supplies BGP routes for me. If ABC internet becomes my 44-net "portal", and the path to them from my ISP goes from new england to virginia (mae east) and back up again, that's only adding a multitude of points of failure for me, where as my tunnel is more direct. [don't be surprised, a lot of that happens in this part of the country - mainly politically motivated for business competition]
IMHO our current tunnelled system with RIP is the best system we've had in the 20ish years I've been with the amprnet.
Good evening guys,
I too agree on the BGP and would like to get mine setup this way just need some assistance.
I have been struggling to even get the Rip44d working anyone that can lend a hand till we can get the BGP setup would be great I have this 44 net in a data center and we have an AS number that it can be announced too.
Thanks
Chad Starling Uvoip.ca 4164772423 011 883 5100 0990 0046 INUM VA3CWS
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 6:49 PM, K7VE - John k7ve@k7ve.org wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ If the BGP is in a 'hardened' data center then its probability of going down is greatly reduced over the random tunnel server running on a 20 year old computer in somebody's basement.
You can multi-home BGP networks for higher reliability. It all depends on how the network is engineered. This is a volunteer effort, with distributed network design and management.
However, I think a truly useful network of Amateur Radio related technologies is better served via high bandwidth infrastructure (99.99% of the time). Ingenuity takes over for the rest (0.01%).
BGP'ed regional networks provide more portals into the larger Internet and can support smaller networks via VPN and Tunnels.
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Bill Vodall wa7nwp@gmail.com wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________
I too would like to see a routed approach - all this clumsy tunnelling house of cards junk is never going to be reliable.
Seems to me it's the other way... With tunnel's, if one station goes down all the other gateways persist. With the BPG routed system, the gateway is another weak link in the routing chain. What happens if the BPG gateway goes down - every station down stream is isolated. I've heard there's provisions for alternate gateways - but is that being used here?
The idea, that was mentioned here a few months ago, of tunnel gateways dynamically rip (or ?) announcing their existence to fellow gateways is intriguing..
73 Bill, WA7NWP _________________________________________ 44Net mailing list 44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
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
Replying to John a bit out of order...
BGP'ed regional networks provide more portals into the larger Internet and can support smaller networks via VPN and Tunnels.
For sure if we had more traffic it would be good to have multiple gateways instead of the existing sole system. Then the smaller networks could tie to each other via Tunnels and VPN to preserve the reliability. (The real need for any connection between 44 net and non-44net would be another good discussion...)
If the BGP is in a 'hardened' data center then its probability of going down is greatly reduced over the random tunnel server running on a 20 year old computer in somebody's basement.
Maybe... But a few 20 year old basement computers 10 or 20 miles apart running ampr applications is something special that we can do and nobody else with no other technology can do.
You can multi-home BGP networks for higher reliability. It all depends on how the network is engineered. This is a volunteer effort, with distributed network design and management.
Part of engineering is considering the 'volunteers' available. Designing a system where only a select few can play (BGP routing) is less HAM oriented, UM!HO, than a basement computer system where anybody and everybody can participate.
However, I think a truly useful network of Amateur Radio related technologies is better served via high bandwidth infrastructure (99.99% of the time). Ingenuity takes over for the rest (0.01%).
That high bandwidth infrastructure is generally not 'amateur RF' so keep it simple and on the stock Internet technologies and no need for any additional routing magic.
It's all pretty much moot given the lack of a use case for either the BGP High speed or basement lower speed systems. I'm still dreaming of a HAM Radio variant of Facebook...
Bill, WA7NWP
On Wed, 29 Jan 2014, Bill Vodall wrote:
Replying to John a bit out of order...
You can multi-home BGP networks for higher reliability. It all depends on how the network is engineered. This is a volunteer effort, with distributed network design and management.
Part of engineering is considering the 'volunteers' available. Designing a system where only a select few can play (BGP routing) is less HAM oriented, UM!HO, than a basement computer system where anybody and everybody can participate.
I don't think anybody is promoting BGP to the exclusion of other routing protocols on net-44. We should be expanding the routing flexibility to accomodate multiple protocols/technologies, further experimentation, and allow utilization of additional volunteers whose expertise goes beyond just static routing and RIP.
However, I think a truly useful network of Amateur Radio related technologies is better served via high bandwidth infrastructure (99.99% of the time). Ingenuity takes over for the rest (0.01%).
That high bandwidth infrastructure is generally not 'amateur RF' so keep it simple and on the stock Internet technologies and no need for any additional routing magic.
Really? Are you saying amateur RF is synonymous with low bandwidth? Have you looked at HSMM lately?
It's all pretty much moot given the lack of a use case for either the BGP High speed or basement lower speed systems. I'm still dreaming of a HAM Radio variant of Facebook...
BGP is not synonymous with high-speed any more than basement is synonymous with low-speed.
Antonio Querubin e-mail: tony@lavanauts.org xmpp: antonioquerubin@gmail.com
The discussion is slowing down again...
You can multi-home BGP networks for higher reliability. It all depends on how the network is engineered. This is a volunteer effort, with distributed network design and management.
Part of engineering is considering the 'volunteers' available. Designing a system where only a select few can play (BGP routing) is less HAM oriented, UM!HO, than a basement computer system where anybody and everybody can participate.
I don't think anybody is promoting BGP to the exclusion of other routing protocols on net-44.
Not directly perhaps but there's lots of disparaging comments on the old tried and true system...
We should be expanding the routing flexibility to accomodate multiple protocols/technologies, further experimentation, and allow utilization of additional volunteers whose expertise goes beyond just static routing and RIP.
Change for the sake of change even if it's not really needed? Yes it is a good thing...
However, I think a truly useful network of Amateur Radio related technologies is better served via high bandwidth infrastructure (99.99% of the time). Ingenuity takes over for the rest (0.01%).
That high bandwidth infrastructure is generally not 'amateur RF' so keep it simple and on the stock Internet technologies and no need for any additional routing magic.
Really? Are you saying amateur RF is synonymous with low bandwidth? Have you looked at HSMM lately?
Yes. Amateur RF is synonymous with low bandwidth. We have unique capabilities but it's with low bandwidth like 1200 baud, 9600 baud, 100K ID1's and hopefully soon UDRX at 56K+.
BBHN (Broadband hamnet, was HSMM) is generally more interested with connectivity than performance. Unfortunately too many experimenters there are new and not familiar with the lessons of 145.01 or 144.39... Even implemented with good RF design the MESH ad-hoc based system has compromises. I tried streaming the next episode of Torchwood from Amazon a couple nights ago and my NW-MESH (based on HSMM-MESH) home system wouldn't do it. I don't think that's even HD. :(
It's all pretty much moot given the lack of a use case for either the BGP High speed or basement lower speed systems. I'm still dreaming of a HAM Radio variant of Facebook...
BGP is not synonymous with high-speed any more than basement is synonymous with low-speed.
Let me reword that while saying the same thing... "It's all pretty much moot given the lack of use case for either the BGP routed datacenter infrastructure or the independent experimenter in the basement with a mapped tunnel gateway."
Having said that, I'm still working to make the Ham Facebook (or ?) available on the air both low speed VHF and higher speed (100 MB+) some time in February...
Antonio Querubin
Bill, WA7NWP
are shown below 44net New Belgium, I take this mail to request an exchange forward via 44net to feed my BBS My new subnet 44.144.11.128/29
-------------------------------------------------- --------------
Mikrotik RouterOS http://44.144.11.129 or http://on4hu.ampr.org/ RouterOS Miktotik
http://44.144.11.136/wordpress/ web or http://on4hu-1.ampr.org web
44.144.11.136:5000 / web or http:// on4hu-1.ampr.org: 5000 / web
44.144.11.137:81 / OpenBCM web or http://on4hu-2.ampr.org:81/ OpenBCM web
-------------------------------------------------- -----------
pse report
-------------------------------------------------- ------------ interested in a link with on4hu, pls drop me a message: on4hu.0 @ gmail.com thank you in advance
André ON4HU http://on4hu.be/ ftp://ftp.on4hu.be http://on4hu.be:81 >> COMPUTER ARE LIKE AIR-CONDITIONNERS THE STOP WORKING AS SOON YOU OPEN WINDOWS
for 44net use http://44.144.11.137:81/
-------- Message original -------- Sujet: Re: [44net] 44Net Digest, Vol 3, Issue 19 Date : Tue, 25 Mar 2014 09:08:23 +0100 De : on4hu on4hu.0@gmail.com Pour : AMPRNet working group 44net@hamradio.ucsd.edu
are shown below 44net New Belgium, I take this mail to request an exchange forward via 44net to feed my BBS My new subnet 44.144.11.128/29
-------------------------------------------------- --------------
Mikrotik RouterOS http://44.144.11.129 or http://on4hu.ampr.org/ RouterOS Miktotik
http://44.144.11.136/wordpress/ web or http://on4hu-1.ampr.org web
44.144.11.136:5000 / web or http:// on4hu-1.ampr.org: 5000 / web
44.144.11.137:81 / OpenBCM web or http://on4hu-2.ampr.org:81/ OpenBCM web
-------------------------------------------------- -----------
pse report
-------------------------------------------------- ------------ interested in a link with on4hu, pls drop me a message: on4hu.0 @ gmail.com thank you in advance
André ON4HU http://on4hu.be/ ftp://ftp.on4hu.be http://on4hu.be:81 >> COMPUTER ARE LIKE AIR-CONDITIONNERS THE STOP WORKING AS SOON YOU OPEN WINDOWS
for 44net use http://44.144.11.137:81/
On 25 mars 2014, at 09:08, on4hu on4hu.0@gmail.com wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ are shown below 44net New Belgium, I take this mail to request an exchange forward via 44net to feed my BBS My new subnet 44.144.11.128/29
Mikrotik RouterOS http://44.144.11.129 or http://on4hu.ampr.org/ RouterOS Miktotik
http://44.144.11.136/wordpress/ web or http://on4hu-1.ampr.org web
44.144.11.136:5000 / web or http:// on4hu-1.ampr.org: 5000 / web
44.144.11.137:81 / OpenBCM web or http://on4hu-2.ampr.org:81/ OpenBCM web
pse report
interested in a link with on4hu, pls drop me a message: on4hu.0 @ gmail.com thank you in advance
André ON4HU http://on4hu.be/ ftp://ftp.on4hu.be http://on4hu.be:81 >> COMPUTER ARE LIKE AIR-CONDITIONNERS THE STOP WORKING AS SOON YOU OPEN WINDOWS
for 44net use http://44.144.11.137:81/ _________________________________________ 44Net mailing list 44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
"I'm still dreaming of a HAM Radio variant of Facebook..."
You are hereby summarily banned from ever operating a ham station ever again. This ban will perpetuate along 7 generations of your spawn. :)
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Bill Vodall wa7nwp@gmail.com wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ Replying to John a bit out of order...
BGP'ed regional networks provide more portals into the larger Internet and can support smaller networks via VPN and Tunnels.
For sure if we had more traffic it would be good to have multiple gateways instead of the existing sole system. Then the smaller networks could tie to each other via Tunnels and VPN to preserve the reliability. (The real need for any connection between 44 net and non-44net would be another good discussion...)
If the BGP is in a 'hardened' data center then its probability of going down is greatly reduced over the random tunnel server running on a 20 year old computer in somebody's basement.
Maybe... But a few 20 year old basement computers 10 or 20 miles apart running ampr applications is something special that we can do and nobody else with no other technology can do.
You can multi-home BGP networks for higher reliability. It all depends on how the network is engineered. This is a volunteer effort, with distributed network design and management.
Part of engineering is considering the 'volunteers' available. Designing a system where only a select few can play (BGP routing) is less HAM oriented, UM!HO, than a basement computer system where anybody and everybody can participate.
However, I think a truly useful network of Amateur Radio related technologies is better served via high bandwidth infrastructure (99.99% of the time). Ingenuity takes over for the rest (0.01%).
That high bandwidth infrastructure is generally not 'amateur RF' so keep it simple and on the stock Internet technologies and no need for any additional routing magic.
It's all pretty much moot given the lack of a use case for either the BGP High speed or basement lower speed systems. I'm still dreaming of a HAM Radio variant of Facebook...
Bill, WA7NWP _________________________________________ 44Net mailing list 44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
Greetings,
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014, Bill Vodall wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________
I too would like to see a routed approach - all this clumsy tunnelling house of cards junk is never going to be reliable.
Naaaa...... :( A giant step backwards.
Seems to me it's the other way... With tunnel's, if one station goes down all the other gateways persist. With the BPG routed system, the gateway is another weak link in the routing chain. What happens if the BPG gateway goes down - every station down stream is isolated. I've heard there's provisions for alternate gateways - but is that being used here?
What we have now, with IPIP Encap (protocol 4) is a FULLY MESHED network. How much better can you get than a network that speaks DIRECTLY gateway to gateway with NO intermediate hops??? Isn't this one of the benefits of HSMM-Mesh in that any node that has a path to another node can continue to pass traffic when other nodes have failed?
I have never understood why so many people can't seem to wrap their heads around IPIP Encap? It is SOOOOooooo easy to use. The drawback seems to be *cheap junk* consumer gateway routers that have no understanding of protocols other than TCP and UDP. IPIP-Encap is NOT TCP and is a protocol unto itself, and so many cheap routers have no idea how to just pass these packets.
I would like to keep the IPIP Encap network in place. If others wish to terminate a large block of addresses into one node, then pass those routes via some other networking protocol into their geographical/political regions, then that is their choice.
--- Jay Nugent WB8TKL Michigan AMPRnet IP Address Coordinator
() ascii ribbon campaign in /\ support of plain text e-mail
o Averaging at least 3 days of MTBWTF!?!?!? o The solution for long term Internet growth is IPv6. o "To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." -Thomas Jefferson +------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Jay Nugent jjn@nuge.com (734)484-5105 (734)649-0850/Cell | | Nugent Telecommunications [www.nuge.com] | | Internet Consulting/Linux SysAdmin/Engineering & Design | | ISP Monitoring [www.ispmonitor.org] ISP & Modem Performance Monitoring | +------------------------------------------------------------------------+ 19:01:01 up 14 days, 9:34, 2 users, load average: 1.78, 2.21, 1.99
On 28.01.14. 02:23, Jay Nugent wrote:
I have never understood why so many people can't seem to wrap theirheads around IPIP Encap? It is SOOOOooooo easy to use. The drawback seems to be *cheap junk* consumer gateway routers that have no understanding of protocols other than TCP and UDP. IPIP-Encap is NOT TCP and is a protocol unto itself, and so many cheap routers have no idea how to just pass these packets.
As far as I recall, it not problem in cheap routers but expensive too, as the only platform that supports custom IPIP used for 44NET is linux box, and even that needs to be customized.
If IPIP is widely supported that would be ok solution. But this is custom solution that needs hacking just to make it work. Pedja YT9TP
--- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Greetings,
On Tue, 28 Jan 2014, YT9TP - Pedja wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ On 28.01.14. 02:23, Jay Nugent wrote:
I have never understood why so many people can't seem to wrap theirheads around IPIP Encap? It is SOOOOooooo easy to use. The drawback seems to be *cheap junk* consumer gateway routers that have no understanding of protocols other than TCP and UDP. IPIP-Encap is NOT TCP and is a protocol unto itself, and so many cheap routers have no idea how to just pass these packets.
As far as I recall, it not problem in cheap routers but expensive too, as the only platform that supports custom IPIP used for 44NET is linux box, and even that needs to be customized.
If IPIP is widely supported that would be ok solution. But this is custom solution that needs hacking just to make it work.
It takes NO hacking at all except to get around junk routers. Replace your router with a PFsense firewall (FREE) and all these problems go away. Networking is NOT hard, it is only the "band aid" solutions that cheap hardware has forced us into, that makes networking difficult (NAT, DNAT, PnP, etc.).
--- Jay WB8TKL
On Tue, 28 Jan 2014, Jay Nugent wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ On Tue, 28 Jan 2014, YT9TP - Pedja wrote:
As far as I recall, it not problem in cheap routers but expensive too, as the only platform that supports custom IPIP used for 44NET is linux box, and even that needs to be customized.
If IPIP is widely supported that would be ok solution. But this is custom solution that needs hacking just to make it work.
It takes NO hacking at all except to get around junk routers. Replace your router with a PFsense firewall (FREE) and all these problems go away.
I guess it depends on your definition of 'hacking' and 'expensive'. Just as I was taught that 'Chaos' is any system of order that I don't yet understand, 'hacking' is any technique of programming that I haven't yet learned. I can learn anything, if I just put my mind to it...
Even the inexpensive appliance routers will 'pass' ipencap if you declare your gateway JNOS box as the 'DMZ'. Do you consider writing firewall rules to be 'hacking'? Some of the inexpensive 'appliance' routers come preloaded with dd-wrt, where a specific forward of protocol 4 can be implemented by editing the config via an ssh console, even if the gui doesn't offer that option. Many inexpensive routers can be reflashed with the Openwrt distro, which is as easy as 'upgrading the firmware' from the factory GUI. The LuCI GUI shipped with that distro has an 'other' option in the protocol field of the 'port forwards' section. Is it considered 'hacking' to type a '4' in the field instead of choosing from a menu?
What's your threshold of 'expensive'? My production router is a Buffalo appliance which I purchased new for about $80USD. I frequently find other openwrt-supported hardware on my local web-classified-ad site for $10-20USD. The PFsense or IPCop distros will run on 'normal' PC-class hardware of PII/256MiB or better, which around here are free for the asking, and usually just taking up space in the garage. I was running IPCop for years on old hardware, and decided to spend real money on the Buffalo when I got tired of whining and wheezing fans, and wanted to reduce my power consumption from ~150W to ~10W. My 'expensive' hardware was worth it immediately for the peace and quiet, and will eventually pay for itself in energy savings.
"Replace your router with a PFsense firewall (FREE) and all these problems go away. Networking is NOT hard, it is only the "band aid" solutions that cheap hardware has forced us into, that makes networking difficult (NAT, DNAT, PnP, etc.)."
I run pFsense here at NI2O and whilst is runs flawlessly I would not say that it was trivial to get it working for 44net IPENCAP. Indeed, using its supplied GUI there was no way in which I could allow any of our protocols to traverse the firewall. In the end I found a very obscure mailing list posting from someone trying to do the exact same thing as me back in 2004. The solution was to edit the /etc/protocols file to enable the ones I wanted (IPENCAP/IPIP/AX.25) and then also edit the GUI web pages so that one could select those protocols in the drop down lists when making new rules. The end result is great but it was a PITA getting there.
Should I write this up? Would it be useful to anyone other than me?
Mark
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Jay Nugent jjn@nuge.com wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ Greetings,
On Tue, 28 Jan 2014, YT9TP - Pedja wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ On 28.01.14. 02:23, Jay Nugent wrote:
I have never understood why so many people can't seem to wrap theirheads around IPIP Encap? It is SOOOOooooo easy to use. The drawback seems to be *cheap junk* consumer gateway routers that have no understanding of protocols other than TCP and UDP. IPIP-Encap is NOT TCP and is a protocol unto itself, and so many cheap routers have no idea how to just pass these packets.
As far as I recall, it not problem in cheap routers but expensive too, as the only platform that supports custom IPIP used for 44NET is linux box, and even that needs to be customized.
If IPIP is widely supported that would be ok solution. But this is custom solution that needs hacking just to make it work.
It takes NO hacking at all except to get around junk routers. Replace your router with a PFsense firewall (FREE) and all these problems go away. Networking is NOT hard, it is only the "band aid" solutions that cheap hardware has forced us into, that makes networking difficult (NAT, DNAT, PnP, etc.).
--- Jay WB8TKL
44Net mailing list 44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 09:24:13AM -0400, Mark Phillips wrote:
Should I write this up? Would it be useful to anyone other than me?
In general, if you have time, anything you've done along these lines should be written up so that others won't have to tread the same long path you had to blaze.
It's gotten off to a slow start but I hope the wiki will serve as a repository for the collected wisdom of the group. - Brian
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014, Bill Vodall wrote:
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 15:01:45 -0800 From: Bill Vodall wa7nwp@gmail.com
I too would like to see a routed approach - all this clumsy tunnelling house of cards junk is never going to be reliable.
Seems to me it's the other way... With tunnel's, if one station goes down all the other gateways persist. With the BPG routed system, the gateway is another weak link in the routing chain. What happens if the BPG gateway goes down - every station down stream is isolated. I've heard there's provisions for alternate gateways - but is that being used here?
The idea, that was mentioned here a few months ago, of tunnel gateways dynamically rip (or ?) announcing their existence to fellow gateways is intriguing..
Actually that's what was being discussed for the BGP routing system. Instead of running ampr-ripd, the tunnels run BGP with each other. This would be similar to how the 6bone was kick-started quite a while ago except we'd be overlaying net-44 on top of the existing IPv4 network. You get the flexibility of a hybrid mesh (partial for many, full for some) and you're running a well-supported EGP that many routers can handle.
"As far as outdoor links are concerned - why do you not use the Ubiquiti 2.4,3.3, and 5.8Ghz gear? It goes really really over long distances even without external amps, and will happily run in the ham bands."
Here in the States we have secondary use of 902-928MHz for which Ubiquiti makes WiFi gear. In turn I use a pair to supply the NJ2MC D-STAR repeater with it's Internet link from one of our members homes some 2 miles away with non-LOS through the trees and over the hill (around the corner from Grandma's house). According to the built in firmware signal meter I'm getting a consistent -90db signal and am sustaining a link speed of some 6mbps - way more than enough to run our D-STAR and WA2EPI's EchoIRLP gear.
I am currently playing with some 5.8 Ubiquity stuff at our local Scout Camp. The aim is to provide Internet connectivity to all the out buildings during the summer camp season. Many of the leaders take time from work to attend the camps and so at least this way they can stay in touch with the office. We have put a small dish type AP on the ham radio tower(we have a permanent shack at the camp) and aimed it along the service road into the camp. We've managed to get about a mile down the road before we had to start repeating from the last building to the smaller huts in the woods. Each building has a 2.4GHz WiFi AP connected back-to-back with the 5.8 radio so as to serve the local users. So far it works great!!! The next project will be to run VoIP to each of the buildings and down to the lake where the water activities happen. We are even toying with the idea of connecting the camp radio system to the VoIP so that the radio users can phone certain buildings. It's not really ham related but we are learning a whole lot.
Mark
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Steve Wright stevewrightnz@gmail.com wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ Interesting reading!
I too would like to see a routed approach - all this clumsy tunnelling house of cards junk is never going to be reliable.
The overly-managed approach doesn't help either. It needs to be far simpler to manage a /24 than what we have now. All the legal speak in that "contract" can get binned too.
As far as outdoor links are concerned - why do you not use the Ubiquiti 2.4,3.3, and 5.8Ghz gear? It goes really really over long distances even without external amps, and will happily run in the ham bands.
Steve
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 9:00 AM, 44net-request@hamradio.ucsd.edu wrote:
Send 44Net mailing list submissions to 44net@hamradio.ucsd.edu
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to 44net-request@hamradio.ucsd.edu
You can reach the person managing the list at 44net-owner@hamradio.ucsd.edu
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of 44Net digest..."
Today's Topics:
- Re: amprnet portal (Bryan Fields)
- Re: amprnet portal (kb9mwr@gmail.com)
Message: 1 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 18:09:57 -0500 From: Bryan Fields Bryan@bryanfields.net To: AMPRNet working group 44net@hamradio.ucsd.edu Subject: Re: [44net] amprnet portal Message-ID: 52E595C5.9090303@bryanfields.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 1/26/14 2:20 PM, kb9mwr@gmail.com wrote:
It would be interesting to hear more about how those other BGP announced chunks of 44net are using the space.
My segment 44.98.254.0/24 is being used for one PtP data link now, and some asterisk based repeater controllers. I have email for kb9mci.net on it (but need to get SWIP/PTR going Brian ;).
My intent is to fire up some of the doodle labs 23cm link cards as we get another repeater site and link it over on that space. As this grows over the next couple years it will be quite a high speed data network with VoIP as the primary purpose. Doing all the RF links in the ham bands is part of the fun. (anyone have a OFDM rated 20-30 watt amp for 23cm that's not $2k?)
One of the pet peeves I've have is not being able to access the other AMPR net space with out tunnels. I think tunnels are just an ugly hack IMO. I'd like to see us transition into more of a regionally routed network, rather than the few BGP nets and UCSD gateway. Well aware of how much time this would take I'm not ready to write up a proposal just yet (ampRFC?).
If anyone wants a subnet I'd be happy to route it to you, as I'm not using the whole /24 and won't be for some time. Global routing policies being what they are, a /24 is the smallest subnet you can announce.
My interest lies in high speed networks, and see little to no value in 9600 baud IP networks in 2014 :)
73's
-- Bryan Fields
727-409-1194 - Voice 727-214-2508 - Fax http://bryanfields.net
Message: 2 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 12:06:01 -0600 From: kb9mwr@gmail.com To: "44net@hamradio.ucsd.edu" 44net@hamradio.ucsd.edu Subject: Re: [44net] amprnet portal Message-ID: < CAK4XxyT5f_UxV5CpzHRX9O0QEtUbGxD0txexZHGRDQTTdA_9yg@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Brian,
Interesting, thanks for sharing.
Amplifiers are something I really think the ham community needs to think about.
They exist, but like you say, but at outrageous prices. i.e.:
http://www.shireeninc.com/300-500mhz-20-watts-outdoor-amplifier/
I have been reading Dubus magazine (focused on microwave), hoping to read more data oriented construction articles.
I am much in the same line of thinking. 1200 and 9600 is really not worth re-deploying in 2014. The regulatory landscape needs some major changes so that manufactures can put something different in the hands of many.
Steve
44Net mailing list 44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
End of 44Net Digest, Vol 3, Issue 19
-- Meshnetworks - Rangitaiki Plains Rural Broadband Internet Providers +64 21 040 5067
-
Antonio Querubin -
Bill Vodall -
Brian Kantor -
Brian Rogers -
Chad Starling -
Jay Nugent -
K7VE - John -
Marc, LX1DUC -
Mark Phillips -
on4hu -
Rick Green -
Steve Wright -
YT9TP - Pedja