Subject: Re: [44net] amprgw ok? From: "Marius Petrescu" marius@yo2loj.ro Date: 11/18/2014 06:05 PM
To: "'AMPRNet working group'" 44net@hamradio.ucsd.edu
Brian, Chris, thank you for your efforts.
I took a look at the latest sent encap info and I want to bring in discussion the way how some gateways are announced.
route addprivate 44.24.240/20 encap 44.24.221.1
Now this one is ok. The gateway (44.24.221.1) is BGP announced, but not in the encap file. Everything ok and working.
Ok, with the exception that my systems cannot route to there, because the gateway is within network-44. Discussed before. Hopefully will change after we are on BGP ourselves, on a connection that does not do source address filtering. But we won't be using a gateway within network-44 unless absolutely required, I still think it is something to be avoided because quite a lot of gateways will not be able to route there, and the reason of "reliability" that was given for this setup in fact results in permanent failure.
Now to the other two IMHO are wrong:
route addprivate 44.151.94.28/32 encap 44.151.94.28
So this host expects to get encapsulated traffic to a gateway which is the host itself. This leeds to a routing loop and is not possible with a regular setup. This encap entry is in fact plain and simple useless: It states 'you can reach me via me' which gives not much information.
This one appears and disappears. Sometimes it is in my list, sometimes not. It could be that he does not understand how to setup his system, and is not able to read English very well. Maybe a French or otherwise Francophone person can try to contact him and ask what is going on.
route addprivate 44.140/16 encap 44.140.0.1
The same applies to the above, just that the whole subnet is routed to a gateway which is part of that subnet itself.
This one also appears and disappears. When I looked in the portal gateway list, the last two gateways were not appearing there. Could it be that they are old gateways that have already been deleted by their owners but are irregularly being re-announced due to the damaged database?
Rob
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Rob Janssen pe1chl@amsat.org wrote:
route addprivate 44.24.240/20 encap 44.24.221.1
Now this one is ok. The gateway (44.24.221.1) is BGP announced, but not in the encap file. Everything ok and working.
Ok, with the exception that my systems cannot route to there, because the gateway is within network-44. Discussed before. Hopefully will change after we are on BGP ourselves,
Once your 44 network is available via BGP, let us (44.24.240/20) know and we can whitelist your network for direct routing. Of course the default route is the Internet BGP route table, but an entry in the encap file will override that. If you want to route to us directly, I can tell our systems to ignore your entry in the encap file. We have this arrangement with a few other BGP-announced networks so we don't have to maintain tunnels to them.
Tom KD7LXL
-
Rob Janssen -
Tom Hayward