24 Aug
2013
24 Aug
'13
7:06 p.m.
Your routes look correct.
Traffic will follow the most 'precise' given route.
For example, lets first use a made-up route to 44.2.12.75.
Since your table does not show a 'specific' subnet,
it will use your rule of "44.0.0.0 169.228.66.251 255.0.0.0"
But, if you use a route to 44.2.14.3, your tables show a more
precise route to that address, so your traffic will use your
route rule of "44.2.14.0 50.79.156.221 255.255.255.248"
The only thing I see in your route that may or may not be of
concern, is the third line. Not sure what your interface "rose0"
goes too, but I see a possible conflict with the route right above it.
You basically have two (2) routes listed for traffic to 44.0.0.0/8
Other than that, that looks good.
As everyone's setups are custom, I don't know what that interface
"rose0"
does for your system.
Bill
At 03:32 PM 8/24/2013, you wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
Hi all,
My routing table after my AMPRnet GATEWAY has got all the routes via
RIPv2 using rip44d, looks like this:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
0.0.0.0 192.168.15.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
44.0.0.0 169.228.66.251 255.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 tunl0
44.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 30 0 0 rose0
44.0.0.1 169.228.66.251 255.255.255.255 UGH 0 0 0 tunl0
44.2.1.32 76.14.161.185 255.255.255.248 UG 0 0 0 tunl0
44.2.10.0 71.130.72.52 255.255.255.248 UG 0 0 0 tunl0
44.2.11.1 71.130.72.52 255.255.255.255 UGH 0 0 0 tunl0
44.2.14.0 50.79.156.221 255.255.255.248 UG 0 0 0 tunl0
44.2.14.100 50.79.156.221 255.255.255.255 UGH 0 0 0 tunl0
44.2.50.0 68.189.32.222 255.255.255.248 UG 0 0 0 tunl0
44.2.50.0 208.74.106.137 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 tunl0
44.4.2.152 173.167.109.217 255.255.255.255 UGH 0 0 0 tunl0
44.4.2.153 173.167.109.217 255.255.255.255 UGH 0 0 0 tunl0
....
More routes
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this correct or am I dending all AMPRnet traffic through UCSD.EDU ?
--
73 de SV1UY
Demetre Ch. Valaris
e-mail: demetre.sv1uy(a)gmail.com
Radio e-mail: sv1uy(a)winlink.org
(to use my radio e-mail put //WL2K in the beginning of the subject line)
http://www.qsl.net/sv1uy
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
http://www.ampr.org/donate.html
25 Aug
25 Aug
3:22 a.m.
New subject: Routing Tables
Hi Bill,
Thanks for reply,
Interface rose0 is a pseudo interface that runs rose protocol which is
similar to netrom. I use FPAC here as well as Linuxnode. In any case
this interface has a metric of 30 pointing to 44.0.0.0/8 and it is not
the preferred route. All my preferred routes have metric 0.
I was really wondering if my route 44.0.0.0/0 with metric 0 should
actually have as a GATEWAY UCSD.EDU (169.228.66.251), or should it
have 0.0.0.0 ???
73 de SV1UY
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 2:06 AM, William Lewis <kg6baj(a)n1oes.org> wrote:
Your routes look correct.
Traffic will follow the most 'precise' given route.
For example, lets first use a made-up route to 44.2.12.75.
Since your table does not show a 'specific' subnet,
it will use your rule of "44.0.0.0 169.228.66.251 255.0.0.0"
But, if you use a route to 44.2.14.3, your tables show a more
precise route to that address, so your traffic will use your
route rule of "44.2.14.0 50.79.156.221 255.255.255.248"
The only thing I see in your route that may or may not be of
concern, is the third line. Not sure what your interface "rose0"
goes too, but I see a possible conflict with the route right above it.
You basically have two (2) routes listed for traffic to 44.0.0.0/8
Other than that, that looks good.
As everyone's setups are custom, I don't know what that interface
"rose0"
does for your system.
Bill
--
73 de SV1UY
Demetre Ch. Valaris
e-mail: demetre.sv1uy(a)gmail.com
Radio e-mail: sv1uy(a)winlink.org
(to use my radio e-mail put //WL2K in the beginning of the subject line)
http://www.qsl.net/sv1uy
7:33 a.m.
New subject: Routing Tables
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags
Metric Ref Use Iface
44.0.0.0 169.228.66.251 255.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 tunl0
I think you probably shouldn't have this route as amprgw (169.228.66.251) isn't
really
a default route for the rest of AMPRNet -- there isn't one. AMPRNet is fully
routed by the entries in the encap table and any subnet which isn't in the table
is by definition not reachable. But I don't think it'll do any harm.
- Brian
26 Aug
26 Aug
4:27 a.m.
New subject: Routing Tables
Brian,
My munge script adds a route command to 169.228.66.251 as a last line.
It does not look right to me but if you say it does not matter then it
is OK by me.
Is everyone else using a munge script? if yes could someone publish it
here so that I can compare it with the one I use! Maybe I use an
outdated one here.
73 de SV1UY
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Brian Kantor <Brian(a)ucsd.edu> wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
--
73 de SV1UY
Demetre Ch. Valaris
e-mail: demetre.sv1uy(a)gmail.com
Radio e-mail: sv1uy(a)winlink.org
(to use my radio e-mail put //WL2K in the beginning of the subject line)
http://www.qsl.net/sv1uy
Destination Gateway Genmask
Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
44.0.0.0 169.228.66.251 255.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 tunl0
I think you probably shouldn't have this route as amprgw (169.228.66.251) isn't
really
a default route for the rest of AMPRNet -- there isn't one. AMPRNet is fully
routed by the entries in the encap table and any subnet which isn't in the table
is by definition not reachable. But I don't think it'll do any harm.
- Brian
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
http://www.ampr.org/donate.html 
2:23 p.m.
New subject: Routing Tables
The default route to 169.228.66.251 is in most munge scripts I have seen.
The motivation was that you are reachable in that way if a new gateway
pops up and you don't refresh your ipip routes at a regular basis.
73,
VE3TOK
On 13-08-26 04:27 AM, Demetre SV1UY wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
Brian,
My munge script adds a route command to 169.228.66.251 as a last line.
It does not look right to me but if you say it does not matter then it
is OK by me.
Is everyone else using a munge script? if yes could someone publish it
here so that I can compare it with the one I use! Maybe I use an
outdated one here.
73 de SV1UY
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Brian Kantor <Brian(a)ucsd.edu> wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
Destination Gateway Genmask
Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
44.0.0.0 169.228.66.251 255.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 tunl0
I
think you probably shouldn't have this route as amprgw (169.228.66.251) isn't
really
a default route for the rest of AMPRNet -- there isn't one. AMPRNet is fully
routed by the entries in the encap table and any subnet which isn't in the table
is by definition not reachable. But I don't think it'll do any harm.
- Brian
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
http://www.ampr.org/donate.html
3:19 p.m.
New subject: Routing Tables
Thanks Bob.
73 de SV1UY
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Bob Tenty <bobtenty(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The default route to 169.228.66.251 is in most munge
scripts I have seen.
The motivation was that you are reachable in that way if a new gateway
pops up and you don't refresh your ipip routes at a regular basis.
73,
VE3TOK
--
73 de SV1UY
Demetre Ch. Valaris
e-mail: demetre.sv1uy(a)gmail.com
Radio e-mail: sv1uy(a)winlink.org
(to use my radio e-mail put //WL2K in the beginning of the subject line)
http://www.qsl.net/sv1uy
4105
days inactive
4107
days old
5 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Bob Tenty -
Brian Kantor -
Demetre SV1UY -
William Lewis