- May I encounter routing issues with some clients ?
- Is it recommended to deploy ampr-ripd in parallel with BGP ?
You won't encounter problems with traffic to other systems on internet and also not with other AMPRnet systems routed via BGP, but some of the traditional AMPRnet networks that are only routed via IPIP will be unreachable when you do not run IPIP tunnels in parallel to your BGP announcement, or at best they will be routed via San Diego, USA which of course affects delay and packet loss values.
I cannot judge if this will affect your system. However, when your router system is capable of running ampr-ripd or another solution for IPIP tunnels (e.g. the scripts for RouterOS or the recent solution for Juniper) I think it is always a good idea to install one of them.
Rob
On 14/03/19 06:33, Rob Janssen wrote:
- May I encounter routing issues with some clients ?
- Is it recommended to deploy ampr-ripd in parallel with BGP ?
You won't encounter problems with traffic to other systems on internet and also not with other AMPRnet systems routed via BGP, but some of the traditional AMPRnet networks that are only routed via IPIP will be unreachable when you do not run IPIP tunnels in parallel to your BGP announcement, or at best they will be routed via San Diego, USA which of course affects delay and packet loss values.
That shouldn't be an issue for Internet facing services (Echolink, DMR, etc), since they're unlikely to be accessed from tunneled systems, but if one is going to host services for other 44net users, then you will definitely want tunnels.
I cannot judge if this will affect your system. However, when your router system is capable of running ampr-ripd or another solution for IPIP tunnels (e.g. the scripts for RouterOS or the recent solution for Juniper) I think it is always a good idea to install one of them.
And then you'll have issues in at least parts of the German networks. I myself now have an issue, because some of my machines have a 44net address for various reasons, and these machines will route to my 44.190.8.x BGP subnet via San Diego (30,000 km round trip!). One thing affected is my Echolink proxy - accessing it from the desktop will be veey suboptimal now). I was thinking of putting in ampr-ripd, but there were protests from the Germans. At this time, I'll probably just setup a site to site VPN, so I can at least have optimal routing between my 2 sites.
Hi Rob & Tony, thank you for your answers,
Le 13/03/2019 à 20:33, Rob Janssen a écrit :
However, when your router system is capable of running ampr-ripd or another solution for IPIP tunnels (e.g. the scripts for RouterOS or the recent solution for Juniper) I think it is always a good idea to install one of them.
Our main routers are Debian VMs, so ampr-ripd is possible.
The problem is that our initial setup will be quite complex, with lots of network interfaces : AMPRNet 44.190/Internet, AMPRNet 44.168/HamNet, public IP Internet (one or two for redundancy), tunnel to Vultr for BGP, cross-data center VPN (one or two), plus one OpenVPN virtual interface for each of our VPN-connected remote locations, and one interface to our "old" network using 10.0.0.0 private addressing (because migration of the whole network won't be doable in one-shot). Routing and firewalling of all that is not a trivial task ;-) So I'd like to avoid IPIP tunnels, at least for the first step... But I'll keep it in mind, in order to be able to add it later.
Our main IP BlockList for the BGP interface is ready (based on iplists.firehol.org). I'll start migrating some machines on 44.190 ASAP, and see what happens, HI ;-)
73 de TK1BI
-
Rob Janssen -
Tony Langdon -
Toussaint OTTAVI