Is it possible to get the IPIP routes delivered by conventional routing protocols (RIP, OSPF, etc) rather than running a custom daemon ?
Just curious.
-Neil
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Is it possible to get the IPIP routes delivered by conventional routing protocols (RIP, OSPF, etc) rather than running a custom daemon ?
Yes there is and there is some documentation here: http://wiki.ampr.org/index.php/Rip44d
73 de Marc, LX1DUC
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 05:25:28PM -0500, Neil Johnson wrote:
Is it possible to get the IPIP routes delivered by conventional routing protocols (RIP, OSPF, etc) rather than running a custom daemon ?
Well, they are being delivered by RIP, but because it's supplying tunnel routes over a tunnel, it has to be handled in a special way, thus RIP44d. You don't want the tunnel routes to be seen by your normal RIP listener because the routes aren't to local next-hop addresses, they're to tunnel endpoints. - Brian
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 9:07 PM, Brian Kantor Brian@ucsd.edu wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 05:25:28PM -0500, Neil Johnson wrote:
Is it possible to get the IPIP routes delivered by conventional routing protocols (RIP, OSPF, etc) rather than running a custom daemon ?
Well, they are being delivered by RIP, but because it's supplying tunnel routes over a tunnel, it has to be handled in a special way, thus RIP44d. You don't want the tunnel routes to be seen by your normal RIP listener because the routes aren't to local next-hop addresses, they're to tunnel endpoints. - Brian
Why does the interface upon which the rip packets arrive matter to a standard ripd daeon? Does the tunnel encapsulation type matter? (would it matter or depend upon if this was l2tp/ipip/pptp/openvpn/gre/etc?) How is a rip packet that arrives on interface tun0 fundamentally different from one that arrives on eth0?
Thanks,
Eric AF6EP
On Sat, 27 Jul 2013, Eric Fort wrote:
Why does the interface upon which the rip packets arrive matter to a standard ripd daeon? Does the tunnel encapsulation type matter? (would it matter or depend upon if this was l2tp/ipip/pptp/openvpn/gre/etc?) How is a rip packet that arrives on interface tun0 fundamentally different from one that arrives on eth0?
It's treated differently because the introduced route will reference a next-hop based on the tunnel destination address of the gateway associated with that route, not on the interface the announcement was received on or the address of the neighbor that sent the announcement. Other than BGP multi-hop and DMVPN, most common routing protocols use a next-hop based on the latter. You may get the full routing table but they wont use a full mesh of links.
On the other hand, if having a full mesh of tunnels is not so important, you can run standard routing protocols with cooperating tunnels/gateways.
Antonio Querubin e-mail: tony@lavanauts.org xmpp: antonioquerubin@gmail.com
Hi Neil,
It is possible to recive them, but the conventional daemons use them in wrong way.
Each RIP entry contains a IP/mask, a gateway and a distance metric. Clasic RIP daemons use this information to create a route entry to that subnet using the IP of the incoming interface as the gateway for the route. The IPIP tunnel interface needs the enstated route to use the gateway provided by the RIP entry instead of the IP of the incoming interface. And this is what rip44d does. An additional custom protocol to quagga could be a solution...
Marius
-----Original Message----- From: 44net-bounces+marius=yo2loj.ro@hamradio.ucsd.edu [mailto:44net-bounces+marius=yo2loj.ro@hamradio.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Neil Johnson Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 01:25 To: AMPRNet working group Subject: [44net] Receiving routes with conventional RIP
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ Is it possible to get the IPIP routes delivered by conventional routing protocols (RIP, OSPF, etc) rather than running a custom daemon ?
Just curious.
-Neil
-- Neil Johnson -N0SFH http://erudicon.com
Just a small correction. Classic RIP uses the rip senders address as the gateway...
To clarify it by example:
Let's take my own RIP entry coming via interface tun0 which has IP address 44.182.21.1: IP address: 44.182.21.0 netmask: 255.255.255.0 nexthop: 89.122.215.236 metric: 1 Sender is 44.0.0.1
the convetional processing will give: 44.182.21.0/24 via 44.0.0.1 dev tun0 proto zebra metric 20
rip44d will create the following entry: 44.182.21.0/24 via 89.122.215.236 dev tun0 window 840
Marius, YO2LOJ
-----Original Message----- From: 44net-bounces+marius=yo2loj.ro@hamradio.ucsd.edu [mailto:44net-bounces+marius=yo2loj.ro@hamradio.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Marius Petrescu Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 11:34 To: 'AMPRNet working group' Subject: Re: [44net] Receiving routes with conventional RIP
It is possible to recive them, but the conventional daemons use them in wrong way. ---
On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 1:51 AM, Marius Petrescu marius@yo2loj.ro wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ Just a small correction. Classic RIP uses the rip senders address as the gateway...
To clarify it by example:
Let's take my own RIP entry coming via interface tun0 which has IP address 44.182.21.1: IP address: 44.182.21.0 netmask: 255.255.255.0 nexthop: 89.122.215.236 metric: 1 Sender is 44.0.0.1
the convetional processing will give: 44.182.21.0/24 via 44.0.0.1 dev tun0 proto zebra metric 20
rip44d will create the following entry: 44.182.21.0/24 via 89.122.215.236 dev tun0 window 840
Marius, YO2LOJ
If the true next hop is known then why does ripd not use it? what is the rfc compliant and thus proper behavior for how and where packets are sent on to when using rip?
Eric
You are right, the true next hop is known. But for the receiving system, in classic RIP the correct next hop is the sender of the RIP message since the sender adverises its routes via the sending interface as a gateway for those routes. The "previous next hop" is used for optimisations/loop avoidance and other internal stuff.
-----Original Message----- From: 44net-bounces+marius=yo2loj.ro@hamradio.ucsd.edu [mailto:44net-bounces+marius=yo2loj.ro@hamradio.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Eric Fort Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 14:41 To: AMPRNet working group Subject: Re: [44net] Receiving routes with conventional RIP
If the true next hop is known then why does ripd not use it? what is the rfc compliant and thus proper behavior for how and where packets are sent on to when using rip?
Eric _________________________________________ 44Net mailing list 44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net http://www.ampr.org/donate.html
-
Antonio Querubin -
Brian Kantor -
Eric Fort -
Marc, LX1DUC -
Marius Petrescu -
Neil Johnson