Hi Blaine, I still can't ping you. I guess I have to do more tests! hi hi hi!!! 73 de SV1UY On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Don Moore <ve3zda(a)gmail.com> wrote: > (Please trim inclusions from previous messages) > _______________________________________________ > If the station you are trying to ping is using the encap.txt process and > not rip then it will take as long as whatever the timing is on that > station. For example I have mine updating every 24 hrs because there are > rarely any changes and that is first thing every morning. > > 73, Don - ve3zda > > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 5:56 AM, Demetre SV1UY <demetre.sv1uy(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: > >> (Please trim inclusions from previous messages) >> _______________________________________________ >> Hi all, >> >> I have setup, after many years of absence, our AMPRnet GATEWAY in >> Athens, running in a LINUX BOX. >> >> I have a dynamic IP here which rarely changes and up to now I had >> access to several AMPRnet hosts. >> >> Yesterday I had to reset my router (TL-WR1043ND running DD-WRT) and I >> lost connectivity. >> >> Checking http://portal.ampr.org I can see that my new Internet IP has >> been updated (it takes about 1 hour I think). >> >> Problem is that now I cannot ping gb7cip.ampr.org or any other AMPRnet >> host I could before? >> >> I can see that rip44d is doing it's thing using "tcpdump -i tunl0". >> >> How long does it take for AMPRnet to be informed after a change in >> Internet IP (nor 44net IP)? It has been more than 12 hours since my >> router got it's new IP and no joy yet! >> >> Any ideas guys? >> >> -- >> 73 de SV1UY >> Demetre Ch. Valaris >> IP Coordinator for AMPRnet in Greece >> e-mail: demetre.sv1uy(a)gmail.com >> Radio e-mail: sv1uy(a)winlink.org >> (to use my radio e-mail put //WL2K in the beginning of the subject line) >> http://www.qsl.net/sv1uy >> _________________________________________ >> 44Net mailing list >> 44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu >> http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net >> http://www.ampr.org/donate.html >> >

Demetre, You may try 44.139.11.6 which is my another IP at the moment, via AMPRNet VPN... (thanks to Hessu, OH7LZB) B.rgds. Tom - sp2lob

You should describe the network setup in a graphically. I also see several issues unless your setup is fundamentally different: - if this is an iptables firewall for a host reachable directly via public IP, the host will be completely exposed (by excepting all protocol 4 packages). - the route 44.0.0.0/8 via tunl0 should always point to the UCSD router, e.g. "ip route add 44/8 dev tunl0 via 169.228.66.251 onlink table 44 I have published a HowTo http://marc.storck.lu/blog/2013/08/howto-setup-an-amprnet-gateway-on-linux/ which describes how to setup the IPIP tunnel server. Configuration element for NATted IPIP tunnel servers is yet missing, but I'm working on it. 73 de Marc Quoting sp2lob(a)tlen.pl:

Marc, I saw your post in your blog and I am going to use it tonight. I do not use 2 ethernet ports although this is probably better. I only have a DD-WRT router connected to a Speedtouch 585v7 (as an ADSL modem in bridge mode) and my AMPRnet Gateway in a LinuxMint Box with one ethernet port and 4 radio ports in it's 4 x RS232 adaptors. 73 de Demetre SV1UY

Hi Marc and all, This sort of setup (44 addresses in my home LAN) I was using years ago, when we had ADSLs with 256kbps download with static IP and also well before the ADSL era when I was using a 14400bps dialup modem connected to a 386 PC running Santa Cruz Unix and later Spackware Linux v 0.92 with diald (a dial on demand daemon). Maybe I will do the same although I must make all my Desktop PCs, Laptops, Netbooks, Tablets, Internet Radios, Smart TV, NAS Boxes and Mobile Phones use 44 addresses. I am not sure if this is very ethical for AMPRnet but I like the idea because if I want to access AMPRnet I will be stuck to my LinuxMint Box because all other PCs etc will have 192.168.x.x addresses. I'm sure I could use some sort of Proxy in my LinuxMint Box for accessing AMRnet from all my devices, but this is another story and right now I'm stuck with my AMRPnet GATEWAY not working when using rip44d. Thanks everybody for trying to help. Please keep the ideas coming. I hope that I will soon fond a solution. 73 de Demetre SV1UY On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 7:50 PM, Marc, LX1DUC <lx1duc(a)rlx.lu> wrote:

Some networks are not routed via the IPIP full mesh but directly via the Internet. For example Sweden and Australia announce their network directly via BGP but at the same time it seems that they don't have IPIP full mesh access. As such if you want to reach any of those networks from within the IPIP full mesh, you will need to route your packets via a default route for 44/8 to the UCSD router which can then route the packets towards the internet. The reason why you cannot just inject your packets to the Internet via your own Internet upstream lies in BCP 38 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp38), which btw is a good thing for the internet as a whole (I admit in our specific case it's less useful, but still...). 73 de Marc, LX1DUC

On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Marc, LX1DUC <lx1duc(a)rlx.lu> wrote: But but... that does not work. I tested it, and Brian confirmed that amprgw can not route packets out to the Internet to the BGP 44/8 sites, unless those sites are also reachable via an IPIP mesh. The technical reason is that the first upstream router between amprgw and the Internet has a static 44/8 route towards amprgw, and does not have the full Internet BGP table which would contain more specific routes to the BGP-only sites. The BGP-enabled sites currently need to be present also in the IPIP table, and have (at least) an IPIP decapsulation gateway, so that other regular gateways can transmit packets to them. amprgw currently cannot act as a relay. Also, it's more optimal to transmit the packets directly using a tunnel instead of trying to route via amprgw, even if it worked. - Hessu

I completely disagree. We should be moving forward, not backwards to 2 decade old band-aid internetworking technology, which means eventually all routing should be based on BGP when traffic needs to travel beyond the 'local' 44-net resources. If IPIP or a VPN is needed to tunnel to a small subnet, then it should tie to an upstream router that can handle the BGP routing. ------------------------------ John D. Hays K7VE PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223 <http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays> <http://www.facebook.com/john.d.hays> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 6:27 AM, Marc, LX1DUC &lt;lx1duc(a)rlx.lu&gt; wrote: