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
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
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@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.
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@mailman.ampr.org https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
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:
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@mailman.ampr.org https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
44Net mailing list 44Net@mailman.ampr.org https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
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@mailman.ampr.org On Behalf Of Marius Petrescu via 44Net Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2020 06:35 To: 44net@mailman.ampr.org Cc: Marius Petrescu marius@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@mailman.ampr.org https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
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.
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@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
On Dec 29, 2020, at 17:54, Marius Petrescu via 44Net <
44net@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@mailman.ampr.org https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
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@ampr.org
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 44Netmailto:44net@mailman.ampr.org Envoyé le :30 décembre 2020 13:20 À : AMPRNet working groupmailto:44net@mailman.ampr.org Cc : K7VE - Johnmailto: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@ampr.org
--
------------------------------ John D. Hays - K7VE Chair, ARDC Grants Advisory Committee Kingston, WA _________________________________________ 44Net mailing list 44Net@mailman.ampr.org https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
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
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@mailman.ampr.org de la part de Rosy Wolfe via 44Net 44net@mailman.ampr.org Envoyé : 30 décembre 2020 13:41 À : 44net@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@mailman.ampr.org https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
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
On 31/12/20 5:41 am, Rosy Wolfe via 44Net wrote:
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.
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.
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@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@mailman.ampr.org https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
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?
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@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@mailman.ampr.org https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
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 44Netmailto:44net@mailman.ampr.org Envoyé le :29 décembre 2020 17:55 À : AMPRNet working groupmailto:44net@mailman.ampr.org Cc : Marius Petrescumailto: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 :
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@mailman.ampr.org https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
_________________________________________ 44Net mailing list 44Net@mailman.ampr.org https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
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
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
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.
-
Dave Gingrich -
K7VE - John -
Marius Petrescu -
pete M -
Rob Janssen -
Rosy Wolfe -
Ruben ON3RVH -
Tony Langdon -
Toussaint OTTAVI -
Zhaofeng Li