13 Mar
2019
13 Mar
'19
3:33 p.m.
- 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
13 Mar
13 Mar
7:58 p.m.
New subject: BGP routes in RIP transmissions - Using ampr-ripd in parallel with BGP ?
On 14/03/19 06:33, Rob Janssen wrote:
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.
- 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.
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.
--
73 de Tony VK3JED/VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com
14 Mar
14 Mar
5:55 a.m.
New subject: BGP routes in RIP transmissions - Using ampr-ripd in parallel with BGP ?
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
2099
days inactive
2100
days old
2 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Rob Janssen -
Tony Langdon -
Toussaint OTTAVI