7 Apr
2019
7 Apr
'19
2:16 p.m.
I was just going through some of the portal pages and
Chris has some
extensive online help next to the various text/check boxes in the "?"
circles. We can't hold Chris accountable for people not comprehending
what they read on the portal. The online help did seem pretty accurate
and well written.
It is not to hold Chris accountable, but some extra text above the form
(that also explains what a gateway is and that setting up a one may not be
what you want to do as a beginner) could be helpful.
Still, there can be problems.
People will always make mistakes. I've seen some
enter in their internal
192 or 10-net space IP as their commercial IP. Perhaps some sort of data
checker can be put in place? That may help.
I hope the RFC1918 check is already made. If not it could be added.
As I wrote before, there have been reasonable checks in place but people here
have asked them to be removed because they wanted to do what the checks prevented.
(like setting up a gateway with external address in net-44)
Rob
7 Apr
7 Apr
2:28 p.m.
New subject: RIP problems?
I hope the RFC1918 check is already made. If not it
could be added.
As I wrote before, there have been reasonable checks in place but
people here
have asked them to be removed because they wanted to do what the
checks prevented.
(like setting up a gateway with external address in net-44)
Maybe if the portal can flags specific issues, it could can then display
additional options like say:
- RFC1918 address space (10.x.x.x/8, 172.16.x.x/12, 192.168.x.x/16)
is not an allowed gateway address as it's non-routable over the Internet
- Specifying a 44.x.x.x address for a gateway is illegal except for
very limited situations (this 44.x.x.x gateways address is BGP hosted
and you still want access to the IP-IP tunneled system)
- IPv6 address space is not supported today
- etc
then under all that, offer a "bypass checks" option to let them do
things anyway?
--David
KI6ZHD
3:26 p.m.
New subject: RIP problems?
Hello all, my name is Eloy and I’m new to the mailing list and to the 44/8 network.
As a new user I can tell what my experience has been so far.
-First is that most of the information needed is available in the Wiki, I spent a few
hours reading before doing anything else.
I was lucky enough that the configuration for Ubiquiti’s Edgerouter was in the Wiki as I
own one.
-I felt that I had enough information and proceeded to create an account in the portal,
and then asked for some IPs.
The answer took only two days.
-Adding the gateway was easy, but It seemed weird that I could have selected other
networks not assigned to me.
-I then created the IPIP tunnel in one of the interfaces of my router using the
instructions provided. I’m not scared of CLI but usually prefer GUI. It’s fine, no big
deal.
Instructions are well written and easy to follow, It did NOT work. I understood was I was
doing to the router and knew that It should have been working, but still, I did not work.
- Then I remembered that I read in the Wiki that I had register the IPs in the DNS.
-I could not find a way of contacting my coordinator directly from the portal, which
forced me to google his callsign and send him a direct email.
He answered very fast and added my IPs.
-After that everything has been working fine. Except that I can reach some servers from my
ISP but not from the tunnel, they respond to pings though.
If anyone could check that I did well, I would appreciate It. My network is 44.98.7.0/28,
right now only the gateway (44.98.7.1) and one server (44.98.7.2) are online.
All the process I described took little more than a week, I found the information I needed
or deduced It from some other.
Eloy
W4ERP
On Apr 7, 2019, at 2:28 PM, David Ranch
<amprgw(a)trinnet.net> wrote:
I hope the RFC1918 check is already made. If not
it could be added.
As I wrote before, there have been reasonable checks in place but people here
have asked them to be removed because they wanted to do what the checks prevented.
(like setting up a gateway with external address in net-44)
Maybe if the portal can flags specific issues, it could can then display additional
options like say:
- RFC1918 address space (10.x.x.x/8, 172.16.x.x/12, 192.168.x.x/16) is not an allowed
gateway address as it's non-routable over the Internet
- Specifying a 44.x.x.x address for a gateway is illegal except for very limited
situations (this 44.x.x.x gateways address is BGP hosted and you still want access to the
IP-IP tunneled system)
- IPv6 address space is not supported today
- etc
then under all that, offer a "bypass checks" option to let them do things
anyway?
--David
KI6ZHD
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net 
5:23 p.m.
New subject: RIP problems?
Eloy,
I can reach your commercial address with https but not 44.98.7.1 or 44.98.7.2 with
ping/http, etc.
I tried your 44 addresses from 44.135.85.151 near Toronto.
73,
Bob VE3TOK
On 2019-04-07 3:26 p.m., eritter via 44Net wrote:
If anyone could check that I did well, I would
appreciate It. My network is 44.98.7.0/28, right now only the gateway (44.98.7.1) and one
server (44.98.7.2) are online.
All the process I described took little more than a week, I found the information I
needed or deduced It from some other.
Eloy
W4ERP
--
When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change
Max Planck
5:54 p.m.
New subject: RIP problems?
That is to be expected, since the ER instruction only tell the reader
how to set up a point to point tunnel to the ampr-gw.
There is nothing related to the mesh network, and there is no way for it
to function with that setup.
I will try to find some time to do a complete rework for the EdgeRouter
in the Wiki.
Marius, YO2LOJ
On 08.04.2019 00:23, Boudewijn (Bob) Tenty via 44Net wrote:
Eloy,
I can reach your commercial address with https but not 44.98.7.1 or 44.98.7.2 with
ping/http, etc.
I tried your 44 addresses from 44.135.85.151 near Toronto.
73,
Bob VE3TOK
On 2019-04-07 3:26 p.m., eritter via 44Net wrote:
> If anyone could check that I did well, I would appreciate It. My network is
44.98.7.0/28, right now only the gateway (44.98.7.1) and one server (44.98.7.2) are
online.
>
> All the process I described took little more than a week, I found the information I
needed or deduced It from some other.
>
> Eloy
> W4ERP
>
>
6:47 p.m.
New subject: RIP problems?
Bob, following your reply I remembered that that the gateway (44.98.7.1) is setup to not
respond to pings and that, for now, the 44.98.7.2 is assigned to the WAN interface of a
virtual router running Untangle which also does not respond to pings. I though the
management interface of the hypervisor was connected and using that IP but that was a
confusion on my side, it’s using my ISP’s IP.
I’ll be changing that later on.
Now the issue is that the virtual machines on the LAN side of the virtual Router do browse
the internet fine when the WAN is connected to the VLAN that correspond to my ISP, but
when connected to the 44/8 network most sites load well but some don’t, I can ping them
though.
The issue is the same using my personal computer when connected to the 44/8 network.
Anyways, I just wanted to comment on my experience as a new user. I think that it could
help improve the site.
The browsing issue could be addressed in a different thread.
Eloy
W5ERP
On Apr 7, 2019, at 5:54 PM, Marius Petrescu
<marius(a)yo2loj.ro> wrote:
That is to be expected, since the ER instruction only tell the reader how to set up a
point to point tunnel to the ampr-gw.
There is nothing related to the mesh network, and there is no way for it to function with
that setup.
I will try to find some time to do a complete rework for the EdgeRouter in the Wiki.
Marius, YO2LOJ
On 08.04.2019 00:23, Boudewijn (Bob) Tenty via
44Net wrote:
Eloy,
I can reach your commercial address with https but not 44.98.7.1 or 44.98.7.2 with
ping/http, etc.
I tried your 44 addresses from 44.135.85.151 near Toronto.
73,
Bob VE3TOK
> On 2019-04-07 3:26 p.m., eritter via 44Net wrote:
> If anyone could check that I did well, I would appreciate It. My network is
44.98.7.0/28, right now only the gateway (44.98.7.1) and one server (44.98.7.2) are
online.
>
> All the process I described took little more than a week, I found the information I
needed or deduced It from some other.
>
> Eloy
> W4ERP
>
>
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net 
7:22 p.m.
New subject: RIP problems?
On 08/04/19 05:26, eritter via 44Net wrote:
Hello all, my name is Eloy and I’m new to the mailing
list and to the 44/8 network.
As a new user I can tell what my experience has been so far.
My experience has been fairly straightforward, but I have been working
with IP for decades, so I _should_ know better! LOL
I had no issues with the portal, again, I have extensive networking
experience, including VPNs and tunnels on both IPv4 and IPv6. I used a
Raspberry Pi as my tunnel endpoint, and got it going on the IPIP mesh in
fairly short order.
I haven't bothered with DNS registration, as I don't really need
Internet access (too many legal issues here, once I start adding actual
radio links). I'm also not a fan of manual processes, they are a much
higher barrier and I have to be in the right mood to deal with the
formal correspondence. Sure, I did it for my BGP announced subnet, but
that was of much higher priority than a couple of DNS entries. :)
--
73 de Tony VK3JED/VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com
7:16 p.m.
New subject: RIP problems?
On 08/04/19 04:28, David Ranch wrote:
That might be the best of both worlds - potential issues are
flagged,
extra information given, then the user given the option to change their
information or continue anyway. If they know what they're doing, this
is simply an extra mouse click on the portal. If they don't, then
hopefully it will prompt them to come here and ask questions, if they're
stuck.
--
73 de Tony VK3JED/VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com
I hope the RFC1918 check is already made. If not
it could be added.
As I wrote before, there have been reasonable checks in place but
people here
have asked them to be removed because they wanted to do what the
checks prevented.
(like setting up a gateway with external address in net-44)
Maybe if the portal can flags specific issues, it could can then
display additional options like say:
- RFC1918 address space (10.x.x.x/8, 172.16.x.x/12, 192.168.x.x/16)
is not an allowed gateway address as it's non-routable over the Internet
- Specifying a 44.x.x.x address for a gateway is illegal except for
very limited situations (this 44.x.x.x gateways address is BGP hosted
and you still want access to the IP-IP tunneled system)
- IPv6 address space is not supported today
- etc
then under all that, offer a "bypass checks" option to let them do
things anyway? 
2:48 p.m.
New subject: RIP problems?
I hope the RFC1918 check is already made. If not it
could be added.
As I wrote before, there have been reasonable checks in place but people here
have asked them to be removed because they wanted to do what the checks prevented.
(like setting up a gateway with external address in net-44)
Rob
The default gateway entry behavior should as idiot proofed as possible
I.e. Not letting one entry a 44 IP as a gateway address, and not
letting you add subnets you aren't associated with.
I think somewhere less obvious (like under ones user profile) there
should be a place to check a box to enable "advanced user options."
And if that is checked then such abnormal things would be accepted?
Not sure how feasible/easy that sort of thing is for Chris to code though.
Those are my thoughts.
1869
days inactive
1869
days old
8 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Boudewijn (Bob) Tenty -
David Ranch -
Eloy Ritter de Monredont -
eritter
-
Marius Petrescu -
Rob Janssen -
Steve L -
Tony Langdon