29 Dec
2020
29 Dec
'20
2:48 p.m.
I don't really agree. IMHO, the key for mass
adoption is the
availability of ready-to-use images for tiny computers such as Raspberry
Pi.
Such images can be made as a by-product of a new network design, but please
understand that the main objective of the network changes should be that
such special images should become unnecessary to get a working network connection.
It should work with a normal router. "normal" in the sense that it requires
a little more than basic home NAT router functionality, but any commercial router
that is able to setup a VPN like L2TP/IPsec, SSTP, PPTP etc should be able
to join the network just using its standard configuration interface.
And when it supports BGP, it should be able to participate in routing
towards others.
So, no special tricks required like we now have multipoint tunnels, ampr-ripd,
etc and which would require preparation of an image for a newbie to be able
to join. Sure it can be done as one of the options, as a project for someone
who likes to make such images (with an initial configuration dialog etc) and
loves to keep such things uptodate.
A simple router like the MikroTik RB750Gr3 is in the same price class as a
Raspberry Pi (when SD card, housing and power supply are included) and it
conveniently provides 5 ethernet ports and a USB connector. For such a
router, just an example configuration is required and the software is kept
uptodate by someone else.
Rob
29 Dec
29 Dec
3:21 p.m.
New subject: ipencap routing question -> What about the future ?
Le 29/12/2020 à 20:48, Rob Janssen via 44Net a écrit :
Such images can be made as a by-product of a new
network design, but please
understand that the main objective of the network changes should be that
such special images should become unnecessary to get a working network connection.
I agree with you. But when I talk with some friends that are "basic"
hams (ie, they are interested in radio topics, but they are not IT or
network experts), I often hear the same thing :
"Why on earth should I bother with AMPR addressing ? It just works fine
over Internet".
In a previous discussion, I looked at the XLX hosts database, and
extracted the 44.x addresses among all Internet addresses. I don't
remember the exact percentage, but it was very low. Nobody is using AMPR
addressing for VoIP / digital modes. And those are not users, those are
sysops of repeaters and gateways (ie, people with skills above average).
Percentage for users would be even lower.
--
Providing RPi images is a convenient way to make complex tools available
for the masses. And it works ! There are dozens of distributions
available, for various RPi clones, and for various applications. None of
them do need an AMPR address to work. You just plug it on your Internet box.
Of course, the best way of doing things would be to add a router with
AMPR logic inside (such as your Mikrotik, or our OpenWRT "TKBox")
between the "application" and the "network". That's what a network
engineer would do. But why would a basic user do that ? What additional
feature will it bring ?
If we have a world-wide standardized description of an AMPRNet tunneling
protocol, developers such as MW0MWZ (dev of Pi-Star) could add the
tunnel into the distro, and provide a field in the GUI where the user
would enter the FDQN of its preferred AMPR POP (in the same way he
enters the IP of his BM Master). Of course, this would not be the best
way of doing things (= a tiny router). But this would allow real
plug-and play, and this would allow a lot of people to discover AMPR
addressing. Doing so, I think we would gain a lot of users. And they
could later move to a router-based configuration once they understand
the advantages of doing it.
If we keep only the "network engineer" approach, with a dedicated
router, my fear is we won't be attractive enough for the masses...
73 de TK1BI
5:54 p.m.
New subject: ipencap routing question -> What about the future ?
I think your xlx example is not the best for the use case of 44net
addresses.
For efficient routing and high speed and low latency as required for
voip systems, it is much more efficient to do a direct connection to the
server on a public interface instead of doing it the 44net way unless
the server sits on a BGP announced subnet.
In our current configuration, why would someone want to go client (let's
say me in YO) -> ampr-gw (in the US) -> xlx server(again YO), with a
350msec turnaround, if I can do it directly, with a 4msec latency?
Yes, a 44 BGP network would do the trick, but I am certainly not willing
to pay hundreds of USD per month for such an endeavor. BGP peering is
not cheap and not readily available in the whole wide world unless it is
not piggy backed on another preexisting AS for a select few working in
the network business.
And even in this case, it is of no use for the client to have a 44net
address, since it will again need to go the ampr-gw route to take
advantage of that IP, while masquerading to the local gateway IP would
yield better results.
We should look into other things, not available or not possible on the
regular internet, and voip and regular services are not it.
Marius, YO2LOJ
On 29.12.2020 22:21, Toussaint OTTAVI via 44Net wrote:
Le 29/12/2020 à 20:48, Rob Janssen via 44Net a écrit :
Such images can be made as a by-product of a new
network design, but
please
understand that the main objective of the network changes should be that
such special images should become unnecessary to get a working
network connection.
I agree with you. But when I talk with some friends that are "basic"
hams (ie, they are interested in radio topics, but they are not IT or
network experts), I often hear the same thing :
"Why on earth should I bother with AMPR addressing ? It just works
fine over Internet".
In a previous discussion, I looked at the XLX hosts database, and
extracted the 44.x addresses among all Internet addresses. I don't
remember the exact percentage, but it was very low. Nobody is using
AMPR addressing for VoIP / digital modes. And those are not users,
those are sysops of repeaters and gateways (ie, people with skills
above average). Percentage for users would be even lower.
--
Providing RPi images is a convenient way to make complex tools
available for the masses. And it works ! There are dozens of
distributions available, for various RPi clones, and for various
applications. None of them do need an AMPR address to work. You just
plug it on your Internet box.
Of course, the best way of doing things would be to add a router with
AMPR logic inside (such as your Mikrotik, or our OpenWRT "TKBox")
between the "application" and the "network". That's what a
network
engineer would do. But why would a basic user do that ? What
additional feature will it bring ?
If we have a world-wide standardized description of an AMPRNet
tunneling protocol, developers such as MW0MWZ (dev of Pi-Star) could
add the tunnel into the distro, and provide a field in the GUI where
the user would enter the FDQN of its preferred AMPR POP (in the same
way he enters the IP of his BM Master). Of course, this would not be
the best way of doing things (= a tiny router). But this would allow
real plug-and play, and this would allow a lot of people to discover
AMPR addressing. Doing so, I think we would gain a lot of users. And
they could later move to a router-based configuration once they
understand the advantages of doing it.
If we keep only the "network engineer" approach, with a dedicated
router, my fear is we won't be attractive enough for the masses...
73 de TK1BI
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net 
11:33 p.m.
New subject: ipencap routing question -> What about the future ?
It has been my experience that BGP peering is usually free. Vultr.com does not charge
anything, nor does my local data center.
--
Dave K9DC
Indianapolis, Indiana USA
On Dec 29, 2020, at 17:54, Marius Petrescu via 44Net
<44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> wrote:
Yes, a 44 BGP network would do the trick, but I am certainly not willing to pay hundreds
of USD per month for such an endeavor. BGP peering is not cheap and not readily available
in the whole wide world unless it is not piggy backed on another preexisting AS for a
select few working in the network business.
30 Dec
30 Dec
12:35 a.m.
New subject: ipencap routing question -> What about the future ?
Yes, if you live in the US.
On 30.12.2020 06:33, Dave Gingrich via 44Net wrote:
It has been my experience that BGP peering is usually
free. Vultr.com does not charge anything, nor does my local data center.
1:01 a.m.
New subject: ipencap routing question -> What about the future ?
Ok I just looked it up... It is not hundreds per month, you are right,
that was some time ago.
To be more precise, a typical offer is:
AS: 215€ the initial AS coste + 50€ the initial setup, then 230€ per
year just for renting and maintaining the AS...
Transit: I could not get an exact value for this, but it will clearly
top my 25€/month 1Gbps internet plan with 2 ISPs.
And then the ISPs are not willing to sell this services to private
persons, only to businesses, for which they have at least double tariffs
on internet services.
So in the end, i get at least 30-40€/month to be added to the existing
costs which will effective double my connection costs...
I may do things for "the greater good", but with limits.
On 30.12.2020 07:35, Marius Petrescu via 44Net wrote:
Yes, if you live in the US.
On 30.12.2020 06:33, Dave Gingrich via 44Net wrote:
It has been my experience that BGP peering is
usually free. Vultr.com
does not charge anything, nor does my local data center.
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net 
1:40 a.m.
New subject: ipencap routing question -> What about the future ?
This pricing does not make sense, and is far from typical. You are in YO, part of the RIPE
service region, and there is only an one-time cost of 50€ for LIRs to "sponsor"
you an ASN. The LIRs are free to add their markups, but I got my ASN 2 years ago from an
LIR for 60€ (I'm outside the RIPE region so I had to provide more documentations).[1]
The bottom line is that there is zero reason for LIRs to charge you annually, unless they
are providing fully-managed services for enterprise customers.
For transit, there are many VPS providers that provide BGP sessions starting from $5,
Vultr included (and yes, Vultr has EU locations).[2] If you want to use your AMPRNet
address at home, you can simply set up a tunnel to your VPS. And that leaves plenty of
room for you to do things for "the greater good" and provide your fellow hams
with a small slice of your address space :)
Zhaofeng / AJ6IA
[1] If you want to take a look, there are several options listed on
<https://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/160162/the-aio-ip-related-thread-ipv4-ipv6-asn-only-providers-or-lirs-are-allowed-to-post-offers/>.
But the usual disclaimer: I'm not affiliated with and do not vouch for any of the
providers listed there.
[2] There is a good list available at https://bgp.services
On Tue, Dec 29, 2020, at 10:01 PM, Marius Petrescu via 44Net wrote:
Ok I just looked it up... It is not hundreds per
month, you are right,
that was some time ago.
To be more precise, a typical offer is:
AS: 215€ the initial AS coste + 50€ the initial setup, then 230€ per
year just for renting and maintaining the AS...
Transit: I could not get an exact value for this, but it will clearly
top my 25€/month 1Gbps internet plan with 2 ISPs.
And then the ISPs are not willing to sell this services to private
persons, only to businesses, for which they have at least double tariffs
on internet services.
So in the end, i get at least 30-40€/month to be added to the existing
costs which will effective double my connection costs...
I may do things for "the greater good", but with limits.
On 30.12.2020 07:35, Marius Petrescu via 44Net wrote:
Yes, if you live in the US.
On 30.12.2020 06:33, Dave Gingrich via 44Net wrote:
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
It has been my experience that BGP peering is
usually free. Vultr.com
does not charge anything, nor does my local data center.
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net 
1:38 a.m.
New subject: ipencap routing question -> What about the future ?
Marius,
Not only in the US.
I have a Vultr VPS in the UK and BGP peering is free of charge (included in the price and
transit bandwidth of the VPS). They currently route my /24. I pay about 5 Eur or so per
month for the VPS.
It'll all depend on what we can do within the ARDC and what we can set up, but the end
goal should be that it is free to the end-users and maintainers.
73
Ruben ON3RVH
-----Original Message-----
From: 44Net <44net-bounces+on3rvh=on3rvh.be(a)mailman.ampr.org> On Behalf Of Marius
Petrescu via 44Net
Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2020 06:35
To: 44net(a)mailman.ampr.org
Cc: Marius Petrescu <marius(a)yo2loj.ro>
Subject: Re: [44net] ipencap routing question -> What about the future ?
Yes, if you live in the US.
On 30.12.2020 06:33, Dave Gingrich via 44Net wrote:
It has been my experience that BGP peering is usually
free. Vultr.com does not charge anything, nor does my local data center.
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
1:58 a.m.
New subject: ipencap routing question -> What about the future ?
On 30/12/20 3:33 pm, Dave Gingrich via 44Net wrote:
It has been my experience that BGP peering is usually
free. Vultr.com does not charge anything, nor does my local data center.
My hosting provider isn't charging me for BGP for my 44.190 allocation
either, and it's been working well.
--
73 de Tony VK3JED/VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com
1:10 p.m.
New subject: ipencap routing question -> What about the future ?
As does Spartan. I don't think this is a big barrier.
In case you haven't seen this --
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxsmGaFZ2MM
I should do an update as I have learned a lot since.
On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 8:35 PM Dave Gingrich via 44Net <
44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> wrote:
It has been my experience that BGP peering is usually free. Vultr.com does
not charge anything, nor does my local data center.
--
Dave K9DC
Indianapolis, Indiana USA
--
------------------------------
John D. Hays - K7VE
Kingston, WA
<http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>
<http://www.facebook.com/john.d.hays>
On Dec 29, 2020, at 17:54, Marius Petrescu via
44Net <
44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> wrote:
Yes, a 44 BGP network would do the trick, but I am certainly not willing
to pay
hundreds of USD per month for such an endeavor. BGP peering is not
cheap and not readily available in the whole wide world unless it is not
piggy backed on another preexisting AS for a select few working in the
network business.
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
1:17 p.m.
New subject: ipencap routing question -> What about the future ?
BTW - Spartan, Vultr, and similar VPS hosting companies can just BGP your
subnet on their own ASN. You don't need to get your own unless you want to.
ARDC TAC will be the vehicle for ARDC's involvement. If you have the skill
and time, please apply to join the TAC at contact(a)ampr.org
--
------------------------------
John D. Hays - K7VE
Chair, ARDC Grants Advisory Committee
Kingston, WA
1:29 p.m.
New subject: Objet : ipencap routing question -> What about the future ?
I am not sure that I have the technical skills to help on the TAC, unless you need someone
that can ask the layman question in advance, I will have the time as I am slowing
switching toward retirement.
I Always like to learn and try new stuff.
Pierre
VE2PF
De : K7VE - John via 44Net<mailto:44net@mailman.ampr.org>
Envoyé le :30 décembre 2020 13:20
À : AMPRNet working group<mailto:44net@mailman.ampr.org>
Cc : K7VE - John<mailto:k7ve@k7ve.org>
Objet :Re: [44net] ipencap routing question -> What about the future ?
BTW - Spartan, Vultr, and similar VPS hosting companies can just BGP your
subnet on their own ASN. You don't need to get your own unless you want to.
ARDC TAC will be the vehicle for ARDC's involvement. If you have the skill
and time, please apply to join the TAC at contact(a)ampr.org
--
------------------------------
John D. Hays - K7VE
Chair, ARDC Grants Advisory Committee
Kingston, WA
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
1:41 p.m.
New subject: Objet : ipencap routing question -> What about the future ?
Pierre,
I am not sure that I have the technical skills to help on the TAC, unless you need
someone that can ask the layman question in advance, I will have the time as I am slowing
switching toward retirement.
I Always like to learn and try new stuff.
I think having a beginner's mind is incredibly important here. Yes, this
is a technical group, but if we're going to get more people into digital
ham, then we need someone to ask layman questions to help make sure that
we can get them on board.
Along those lines, I know the documentation and wiki need to be updated.
It can be quite helpful to have someone with your level of expertise to
review them, to make sure they are accessible by the widest audience
possible. Plus, using simple terminology is very helpful with
translation, which I know is something we want to do.
Rosy
Rosy Wolfe - KJ7RYV
Executive Director
Amateur Radio Digital Communications (ARDC)
ampr.org
1:48 p.m.
New subject: Objet : ipencap routing question -> What about the future ?
Well Rosy, you have very good argument.
I will apply, the worst that can happen is that I wont be able to help much.
And what I will be able to bring will hopefully hekp some other ham's. ;-)
Pierre
VE2PF
________________________________________
De : 44Net <44net-bounces+petem001=hotmail.com(a)mailman.ampr.org> de la part de Rosy
Wolfe via 44Net <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org>
Envoyé : 30 décembre 2020 13:41
À : 44net(a)mailman.ampr.org
Cc : Rosy Wolfe
Objet : Re: [44net] Objet : ipencap routing question -> What about the future ?
Pierre,
I am not sure that I have the technical skills to help on the TAC, unless you need
someone that can ask the layman question in advance, I will have the time as I am slowing
switching toward retirement.
I Always like to learn and try new stuff.
I think having a beginner's mind is incredibly important here. Yes, this
is a technical group, but if we're going to get more people into digital
ham, then we need someone to ask layman questions to help make sure that
we can get them on board.
Along those lines, I know the documentation and wiki need to be updated.
It can be quite helpful to have someone with your level of expertise to
review them, to make sure they are accessible by the widest audience
possible. Plus, using simple terminology is very helpful with
translation, which I know is something we want to do.
Rosy
Rosy Wolfe - KJ7RYV
Executive Director
Amateur Radio Digital Communications (ARDC)
ampr.org
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
1:53 p.m.
New subject: Objet : ipencap routing question -> What about the future ?
Well Rosy, you have very good argument.
[hair toss] Why thank you ;)
I will apply, the worst that can happen is that I wont be able to help much.
And what I will be able to bring will hopefully hekp some other ham's. ;-)
Awesome! Looking forward to seeing your application.
All the best,
Rosy
Rosy Wolfe - KJ7RYV
Executive Director
Amateur Radio Digital Communications (ARDC)
ampr.org
31 Dec
31 Dec
3:41 a.m.
New subject: Objet : ipencap routing question -> What about the future ?
On 31/12/20 5:41 am, Rosy Wolfe via 44Net wrote:
Pierre,
And I'm a
different kettle of fish again. I don't fit into conventional
roles, and my skill set is always going to be somewhat all over the
place - it's the way I'm wired. But I tend to think out of the box, and
I also tend to try and use things in unusual ways - one to break
assumptions that programmers or administrators might make.
I am not sure that I have the technical skills to help on the TAC,
unless you need someone that can ask the layman question in advance,
I will have the time as I am slowing switching toward retirement.
I Always like to learn and try new stuff.
I think having a beginner's mind is incredibly important here. Yes,
this is a technical group, but if we're going to get more people into
digital ham, then we need someone to ask layman questions to help make
sure that we can get them on board.
Along those lines, I know the documentation and wiki need to be
updated. It can be quite helpful to have someone with your level of
expertise to review them, to make sure they are accessible by the
widest audience possible. Plus, using simple terminology is very
helpful with translation, which I know is something we want to do. From where I sit, the TAC seems a bit formal for me,
and I've never been
involved in managing WANs (beyond simple VPNs between
distant sites),
but I'd like to have input at some level. And while we're at it, I'd
like to see some more thoughts on IPv6. I've been running native IPv6
for almost 9 years now.
--
73 de Tony VK3JED/VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com
11:48 a.m.
New subject: Objet : ipencap routing question -> What about the future ?
Tony,
The 44NGN mailing list is a place to be involved without formally being a
member of the TAC.
On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 12:44 AM Tony Langdon via 44Net <
44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> wrote:
And I'm a different kettle of fish again. I don't fit into conventional
roles, and my skill set is always going to be somewhat all over the
place - it's the way I'm wired. But I tend to think out of the box, and
I also tend to try and use things in unusual ways - one to break
assumptions that programmers or administrators might make.
From where I sit, the TAC seems a bit formal for me, and I've never been
involved in managing WANs (beyond simple VPNs between distant sites),
but I'd like to have input at some level. And while we're at it, I'd
like to see some more thoughts on IPv6. I've been running native IPv6
for almost 9 years now.
--
73 de Tony VK3JED/VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
--
------------------------------
John D. Hays - K7VE
Kingston, WA
<http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>
<http://www.facebook.com/john.d.hays>
4:06 p.m.
New subject: Objet : ipencap routing question -> What about the future ?
On 1/1/21 3:48 am, K7VE - John via 44Net wrote:
Tony,
The 44NGN mailing list is a place to be involved without formally being a
member of the TAC.
That's not the impression I've got over the past couple
of days.
Existing subscribers (including myself) were unsubscribed by the admin,
and I thought I saw somewhere that the list would be used by the TAC.
If this was the case, why was I unsubscribed without consultation?
--
73 de Tony VK3JED/VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com
5:13 p.m.
New subject: Objet : ipencap routing question -> What about the future ?
Hi Tony,
Chris explained that in a mail to the list. Everyone was unsubscribed and those that
showed interrest were resubscribed to start of with a clean list. You can contact Chris if
you’d like to help out and he’ll resubscribe you
Have a great and safe end of year!
Ruben - ON3RVH
On 31 Dec 2020, at 22:08, Tony Langdon via 44Net
<44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> wrote:
On 1/1/21 3:48 am, K7VE - John via 44Net wrote:
Tony,
The 44NGN mailing list is a place to be involved without formally being a
member of the TAC.
That's not the impression I've got over the past couple
of days.
Existing subscribers (including myself) were unsubscribed by the admin,
and I thought I saw somewhere that the list would be used by the TAC.
If this was the case, why was I unsubscribed without consultation?
--
73 de Tony VK3JED/VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
29 Dec
29 Dec
11:49 p.m.
New subject: Objet : ipencap routing question -> What about the future ?
Marius, I dont know where you got the idea you need to pay hundreds of $ a month for a vps
that do the BGP annonce of a /24 block.
My VPS is costing me 3.50$US a month and it is in New Jersey, I have a latency of 4-6 ms
when connected to it.
Pierre VE2PF
De : Marius Petrescu via 44Net<mailto:44net@mailman.ampr.org>
Envoyé le :29 décembre 2020 17:55
À : AMPRNet working group<mailto:44net@mailman.ampr.org>
Cc : Marius Petrescu<mailto:marius@yo2loj.ro>
Objet :Re: [44net] ipencap routing question -> What about the future ?
I think your xlx example is not the best for the use case of 44net
addresses.
For efficient routing and high speed and low latency as required for
voip systems, it is much more efficient to do a direct connection to the
server on a public interface instead of doing it the 44net way unless
the server sits on a BGP announced subnet.
In our current configuration, why would someone want to go client (let's
say me in YO) -> ampr-gw (in the US) -> xlx server(again YO), with a
350msec turnaround, if I can do it directly, with a 4msec latency?
Yes, a 44 BGP network would do the trick, but I am certainly not willing
to pay hundreds of USD per month for such an endeavor. BGP peering is
not cheap and not readily available in the whole wide world unless it is
not piggy backed on another preexisting AS for a select few working in
the network business.
And even in this case, it is of no use for the client to have a 44net
address, since it will again need to go the ampr-gw route to take
advantage of that IP, while masquerading to the local gateway IP would
yield better results.
We should look into other things, not available or not possible on the
regular internet, and voip and regular services are not it.
Marius, YO2LOJ
On 29.12.2020 22:21, Toussaint OTTAVI via 44Net wrote:
Le 29/12/2020 à 20:48, Rob Janssen via 44Net a écrit :
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
Such images can be made as a by-product of a new
network design, but
please
understand that the main objective of the network changes should be that
such special images should become unnecessary to get a working
network connection.
I agree with you. But when I talk with some friends that are "basic"
hams (ie, they are interested in radio topics, but they are not IT or
network experts), I often hear the same thing :
"Why on earth should I bother with AMPR addressing ? It just works
fine over Internet".
In a previous discussion, I looked at the XLX hosts database, and
extracted the 44.x addresses among all Internet addresses. I don't
remember the exact percentage, but it was very low. Nobody is using
AMPR addressing for VoIP / digital modes. And those are not users,
those are sysops of repeaters and gateways (ie, people with skills
above average). Percentage for users would be even lower.
--
Providing RPi images is a convenient way to make complex tools
available for the masses. And it works ! There are dozens of
distributions available, for various RPi clones, and for various
applications. None of them do need an AMPR address to work. You just
plug it on your Internet box.
Of course, the best way of doing things would be to add a router with
AMPR logic inside (such as your Mikrotik, or our OpenWRT "TKBox")
between the "application" and the "network". That's what a
network
engineer would do. But why would a basic user do that ? What
additional feature will it bring ?
If we have a world-wide standardized description of an AMPRNet
tunneling protocol, developers such as MW0MWZ (dev of Pi-Star) could
add the tunnel into the distro, and provide a field in the GUI where
the user would enter the FDQN of its preferred AMPR POP (in the same
way he enters the IP of his BM Master). Of course, this would not be
the best way of doing things (= a tiny router). But this would allow
real plug-and play, and this would allow a lot of people to discover
AMPR addressing. Doing so, I think we would gain a lot of users. And
they could later move to a router-based configuration once they
understand the advantages of doing it.
If we keep only the "network engineer" approach, with a dedicated
router, my fear is we won't be attractive enough for the masses...
73 de TK1BI
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
30 Dec
30 Dec
3:56 a.m.
New subject: ipencap routing question -> What about the future ?
Hi Marius,
Le 29/12/2020 à 23:54, Marius Petrescu a écrit :
I think your xlx example is not the best for the use
case of 44net
addresses.
It's a good example of pure HAM application not using 44net addresses
because of 44net current topology.
For efficient routing and high speed and low latency
as required for
voip systems, it is much more efficient to do a direct connection to
the server on a public interface instead of doing it the 44net way
unless the server sits on a BGP announced subnet.
Our XLX is using 44.190 IP adressing. Following DG8NGN rules, it's
routed directly to Internet from our data center. Reaching it via its
44.190.11.6 IP address, or via public Internet address, is currently the
same latency. Some people are using dual addressing (44net and public
Internet). We dropped public Internet completely, and are using only
44.190 IP addresses.
Yes, a 44 BGP network would do the trick, but I am certainly not
willing to pay hundreds of USD per month for such an endeavor. BGP
peering is not cheap and not readily available in the whole wide world
unless it is not piggy backed on another preexisting AS for a select
few working in the network business.
Several people here are using Vultr VPS. Our instance costs $5/month,
but the $2.5/month instance would do the job, too. Setup is very easy.
Also, as said before, we now can afford some operational costs for
network infrastructure.
And even in this case, it is of no use for the client
to have a 44net
address, since it will again need to go the ampr-gw route to take
advantage of that IP, while masquerading to the local gateway IP
would yield better results.
I do not really understand. The idea of a single ampr-gw in San Diego is
from the past. We are now thinking about the future. One idea would be
to install several POPs (Points of Presence) in several countries or
regional zones. That's what we did here, on our tiny island. We are
currently experimenting dual addressing :
- 44.168 : standard AMPr adressing, routed via current schemes; no
output to Internet, or output via the nearest local NAT gateway
- 44.190 : full Internet routing, via BGP, at the same cost as standard
Internet routing. IP addresses are announced in Paris (nearest Vultr
data center) then routed to our regional POP in Corsica via the most
direct path.
We should look into other things, not available or not possible on the
regular internet, and voip and regular services are not it.
That's an opinion ;-) But I have another one ;-)
VoIP, digital modes, SDR and other applications using computers are
enjoyed by many people, particularly the young ones. The most recent
commercial transceivers are SDR (ie, a computer), have Ethernet ports,
and use IP. On the other hand, we own a dedicated IP range. My opinion
is that every HAM application using IP should use AMPR addressing, or
should be able to use it easily. If we have a good routing policy, this
would allow to isolate what is pure ham radio (for ex, remote rig
control) from what is general purpose Internet. AMPRNet should work as a
corporate network, allowing members to communicate with each other, and
with the ability to limit / control gateways to wild Internet (required
by some regulations in some countries; this would help us achieve this goal)
73 de TK1BI
6:22 a.m.
New subject: ipencap routing question -> What about the future ?
On 30.12.2020 10:56, Toussaint OTTAVI via 44Net wrote:
VoIP, digital modes, SDR and other applications using computers are
enjoyed by many people, particularly the young ones. The most recent
commercial transceivers are SDR (ie, a computer), have Ethernet ports,
and use IP. On the other hand, we own a dedicated IP range. My opinion
is that every HAM application using IP should use AMPR addressing, or
should be able to use it easily. If we have a good routing policy,
this would allow to isolate what is pure ham radio (for ex, remote rig
control) from what is general purpose Internet. AMPRNet should work as
a corporate network, allowing members to communicate with each other,
and with the ability to limit / control gateways to wild Internet
(required by some regulations in some countries; this would help us
achieve this goal)
Yes, this is exactly the kind of use that brings out the advantage of
having a dedicated IP subnet available: there is a certain degree of
trust between those hosts.
Now regarding that voip use and the masquerade, from my point of view as
a non-US user...
Most of the people using DMR/D-Star/C4FM and whatever other digital
modes are NOT in the 44net and don't want to be. They just want a simple
solution for their hotspots and repeaters that needs to run over regular
internet connections with a dynamic IP and not bother with other network
stuff. In this case, a reflector running on a public IP or on a BGP
announced 44net will provide the same job, with the same latency and the
same availability, being functional equivalent.
But if that reflector sits on a meshed/tunneled host, that is no longer
the case. It will need to run via the amprgw, which is not desired, so
this is out of the question, especially for users and hotspots outside
the US, since it will add 2 hops over the pond, which take time. For
such cases, running the reflector on a public IP makes sense.
From the users point of view, the issue is similar. Running the client
on a 44net address in the current meshed gateway system will send them
directly to the reflector if the reflector sits on a 44net address AND
provides mesh access, but usually will take them via amprgw if the
reflector is only on a BGP announced subnet without tunnel endpoints
(and this is the usual case as BGP announced subnets are chosen for the
exact reason of not doing the mesh part).
For a reflector located on a public IP, when using 44net in a meshed GW,
depending on the setup, this will either masquerade the outgoing
connection to the GW's public IP loosing the 44net source address (and I
think this is the proper way to do it), or it will go via amprgw, again
crossing the pond once or twice, depending on the reflector's location.
So, while there is no big difference in hosting a voip reflector on a
public or BGP-announced IP for a regular internet user (most of the
hams), it makes no sense to host it solely on a 44net meshed host
(unless access via the public IP is also provided). And in this case,
that reflector needs to appear under 2 different names with different
IPs, so that the end user may select the one appropriate for his setup,
since there is no way to provide IP information for a dual hosted
reflector to the current client hotspot/repeater softwares. It is only a
single name with a single IPv4 address.
And it makes also no sense for a client to try to access reflectors on
the public internet using meshed 44net addresses: masquerading to the
users public GW address will yield better results providing direct
connections without passing through the amprgw, which will happen if
access from a 44net meshed IP to a public IP is requested.
Maybe now I made my self clear...
Marius, YO2LOJ
8:28 a.m.
New subject: ipencap routing question -> What about the future ?
Le 30/12/2020 à 12:22, Marius Petrescu via 44Net a écrit :
And it makes also no sense for a client to try to
access reflectors on
the public internet using meshed 44net addresses: masquerading to the
users public GW address will yield better results providing direct
connections without passing through the amprgw, which will happen if
access from a 44net meshed IP to a public IP is requested.
Maybe now I made my self clear...
Yes, it's clear. You are talking about the current (=past) routing
scheme. And you are pointing out what prevented most of us from using
44net in the past.
Now, we would like to change some things, and we are talking about what
we would like for the future.
We already have solutions for avoiding amprgw (and other caveats you
mentioned). We now need to define a common policy for everybody all over
the world.
1235
days inactive
1237
days old
22 comments
10 participants
participants (10)
-
Dave Gingrich -
K7VE - John -
Marius Petrescu -
pete M -
Rob Janssen -
Rosy Wolfe -
Ruben ON3RVH -
Tony Langdon -
Toussaint OTTAVI -
Zhaofeng Li