Please remember that all the tunnel gateways are sharing a single router and network connection at UCSD. I think it would be unwise to set up multiple network monitors -- one or two should be enough. Please be respectful of your network neighbors. - Brian On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 08:46:10PM +0100, Jean-Marc Magnier wrote:

Yes, if you are testing only network-44 addresses from network-44 hosts the traffic will follow point-to-point tunnels and not involve UCSD. Similarly, if testing the gateway commercial address, that should be done from a host that is on the commercial internet so that the traffic doesn't pass through UCSD. My concern is to keep the network from getting congested with automated traffic. - Brian On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 09:39:16PM +0100, Jean-Marc Magnier wrote:

If we talk about traffic Do you have any tool to grab statistic how much Bandwidth (or Bytes etc) every gateway takes ? if yes may you share with us a statistic of the gateways ? ________________________________________ From: 44Net <44net-bounces+ronenp=hotmail.com(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Brian Kantor <Brian(a)UCSD.Edu> Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 12:13 PM To: AMPRNet working group Subject: Re: [44net] Network Monitor Of Gateways ? (Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ Please remember that all the tunnel gateways are sharing a single router and network connection at UCSD. I think it would be unwise to set up multiple network monitors -- one or two should be enough. Please be respectful of your network neighbors. - Brian On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 08:46:10PM +0100, Jean-Marc Magnier wrote: _________________________________________ 44Net mailing list 44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net

Is making 3Pings to about 400 Gateways worldwide from non AMPR IP to their AMPR ip every 5 minutes consider acceptable thing to do ? _______________________________________________ Please remember that all the tunnel gateways are sharing a single router and network connection at UCSD. I think it would be unwise to set up multiple network monitors -- one or two should be enough. Please be respectful of your network neighbors. - Brian On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 08:46:10PM +0100, Jean-Marc Magnier wrote: _________________________________________ 44Net mailing list 44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net

Dear John First of all im very pleased to talk with the BPQ Node developer we had lot of your nodes long ago when the Packet was operating About the gateways , Im aware of that problem that not all gateways accept pings from Non -AMPR adress If thats the problem they will be pinged to their non ampr address As for which IP to ping as much as I see every gateway have 44 IP leg (is supposed to serve as the default route setting for the TCP hosts who operate on the local 44 net) This address is the one i would like to ping ... As for Ping Traffic , ok if 5 minutes consider too short i may do it on hourly base (say every one hour) The idea is to get tool that will alert the gateway users (i dont sit on my router 24x7 ) that "something " happen and that they will be aware of it (by Email or SMS) and also to show a worldwide map of network status (as all commercial services do) (the fact that we are "amateurs" doesn't necessarily mean we are not professionals (or that we should behave as non professionals) 73's Ronen - 4Z4ZQ http://www.ronen.org ________________________________________ From: 44Net <44net-bounces+ronenp=hotmail.com(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu> on behalf of John Wiseman <john.wiseman(a)cantab.net> Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2016 12:19 AM To: 'AMPRNet working group' Subject: Re: [44net] Network Monitor Of Gateways ? (Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ Two points to consider. A gateway doesn't have an AMPR IP address. It supports a range of addresses, and only those in the DNS will be reachable from non-AMPR addresses, Which will you ping? Some gateway software will not accept any packets from non-AMPR addresses to its AMPR address range. On your original question, I currently have 530 gateways in my list. I'd consider every 5 minutes a bit excessive, even if spread over the 5 minute interval. Others may disagree! 73, John G8BPQ -----Original Message-----

Ronen, Why do you need to probe the networks? Just to get some traffic flowing to satisfy your curiosity? If you find out that some gateways are up, and some not, how is this information helpful to you since they are not under your control, you can not do anything about it, and you will probably not access them anyway since they don't offer any services you need. A lot of users consider any probing not acceptable and consider even some 2-3 pings per hour excessive, and any unnecessary traffic is not welcomed. By the way, there is no 44 gateway address defined for subnets, so you will probably will not get responses because you can not guess them and not everyone uses the first or last IP of the subnet as the gateway IP. To ping the public gateway address will not do either, since a lot of them do not respond to icmp requests. And as described, let's assume everyone starts doing this. Having 500 subnets probing your network every 5 minutes will give some 1Mb traffic per request set (3 pings, 60 bytes each, 10bits/byte because of overhead). On a 1200bps radio link this will saturate the link... So probe the ones interesting to you, in agreement with the other sysop. If they accept, it is ok, If not, don't. Marius, YO2LOJ -----Original Message----- From: R P Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 09:38 To: AMPRNet working group Subject: Re: [44net] Network Monitor Of Gateways ? (Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ Is making 3Pings to about 400 Gateways worldwide from non AMPR IP to their AMPR ip every 5 minutes consider acceptable thing to do ?

Ronen, It is up to each gateway owner whether they want that monitoring and it should be an OPT-IN only. Please do not probe other people's gateways and networks without their specific request. I think it is unfriendly to do so, and there is quite enough of that already. - Brian On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 12:07:54PM +0000, R P wrote:

I don't think anyone is angry, it's just not a welcome idea. - Brian On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 12:38:01PM +0000, R P wrote: