15 Jun
2016
15 Jun
'16
2:52 p.m.
In any case, your subnet will be connected to the
Internet by at most
ONE method: Radio, Tunnel, or Direct, and might not be connected at all,
so select at most ONE of the connection method boxes in the allocation
request. (I have asked that these selections be changed to a pulldown
list or radio buttons so that it is impossible to select more than one;
until that happens, requests having more than one box checked are likely
to be rejected.)
- Brian
Why is that??
We have been happily connected on both BGP and Tunnel for some time.
The gateways that are part of the tunnel mesh route to us by Tunnel and
the remainder of internet routes directly. What is wrong with that?
Some gateways do not want to route directly ("only AMPRnet") so it is
preferred when they can use the Tunnel to the same network.
Rob
15 Jun
15 Jun
3:30 p.m.
New subject: block allocation
I agree with Rob here otherwise stuff will fall apart.
Bob
On 16-06-15 02:52 PM, Rob Janssen wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
In any case, your subnet will be connected to the
Internet by at most
ONE method: Radio, Tunnel, or Direct, and might not be connected at all,
so select at most ONE of the connection method boxes in the allocation
request. (I have asked that these selections be changed to a pulldown
list or radio buttons so that it is impossible to select more than one;
until that happens, requests having more than one box checked are likely
to be rejected.)
- Brian
Why is that??
We have been happily connected on both BGP and Tunnel for some time.
The gateways that are part of the tunnel mesh route to us by Tunnel and
the remainder of internet routes directly. What is wrong with that?
Some gateways do not want to route directly ("only AMPRnet") so it is
preferred when they can use the Tunnel to the same network.
Rob
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net 
4:05 p.m.
New subject: block allocation
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 08:52:49PM +0200, Rob Janssen wrote:
We have been happily connected on both BGP and Tunnel
for some time.
The gateways that are part of the tunnel mesh route to us by Tunnel and
the remainder of internet routes directly. What is wrong with that?
Some gateways do not want to route directly ("only AMPRnet") so it is
preferred when they can use the Tunnel to the same network.
I'm not saying you can't be connected in more than one way, I'm saying
that it's a special case that is unusual enough that it ought not to be
easy to mistakenly claim you're going to do. As far as I know, Rob, at
the current moment you're the only one doing this.
Two or three times a week I get applications which have simplemindedly
checked all three boxes. Most of these people have no idea what they're
asking for and I have to take time to correspond with them to make
sure that they're really going to get a BGP'd connection from their ISP,
which most of them (nearly ALL of them) aren't going to do. They then
have to modify their request to delete the Direct check and resize their
requested netmask and then resubmit it, after which I have to manually
re-route it from me to the appropriate coordinator. This is a painful
process that could be avoided if it weren't possible to check the Direct
box along with any other box at application time.
I'm open to any suggestion that will keep me from having to go through
this process over and over again. Perhaps making 'Direct' a link which
brings up an intermediate page which presents a blurb about what checking
Direct actually means and demands that they confirm that they're really
going to get a BGP announcement from their ISP? Other ideas?
- Brian
4:11 p.m.
New subject: block allocation
On 6/15/16 4:05 PM, Brian Kantor wrote:
I'm open to any suggestion that will keep me from
having to go through
this process over and over again. Perhaps making 'Direct' a link which
brings up an intermediate page which presents a blurb about what checking
Direct actually means and demands that they confirm that they're really
going to get a BGP announcement from their ISP? Other ideas?
Why not make this go to the local coordinator for approval? This way you only
see the coordinator approved direct connected networks.
--
Bryan Fields
727-409-1194 - Voice
727-214-2508 - Fax
http://bryanfields.net
4:23 p.m.
New subject: block allocation
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 04:11:01PM -0400, Bryan Fields wrote:
Why not make this go to the local coordinator for
approval? This way you only
see the coordinator approved direct connected networks.
We used to do that. The problem was that people were taking the
approval of coordination as authorization to have their subnet
BGP-announced (which the local coordinator can't authorize)
and then would go ahead and have their ISP start announcing it.
To prevent this, we made it so that Direct requests come to me
instead of to the local coordinator.
I suppose the portal could be modified so that when a local coordinator
approves a Direct request, the approval notice isn't sent to the
requestor but instead queues the request for subsequent approval
by the Direct coordinator (currently me). This is a significant
change in the way the portal works but might be the best solution.
Chris?
- Brian
4:30 p.m.
New subject: block allocation
On 6/15/16 4:23 PM, Brian Kantor wrote:
I suppose the portal could be modified so that when a
local coordinator
approves a Direct request, the approval notice isn't sent to the
requestor but instead queues the request for subsequent approval
by the Direct coordinator (currently me). This is a significant
change in the way the portal works but might be the best solution.
Chris?
Agreed, this would be a great way to pipeline it all.
If only this was open source so changes could be easily made....
It just needs a queue, why can't we have a group (hello TAC) who can act on
these? This would take some of the load off you and we can still get it
evaluated/approved by a technical group.
--
Bryan Fields
727-409-1194 - Voice
727-214-2508 - Fax
http://bryanfields.net
7:10 p.m.
New subject: block allocation
Brian,
Perhaps having some sort of explanation & agreement page (which would
still forward to you afterwards) on what the options mean might also help in
deterring those who are not sure what they are doing if they check the BGP
option.
Tim Osburn
https://www.osburn.com
W7RSZ / JG1MBR
On Wed, 15 Jun 2016, Brian Kantor wrote:
To prevent this, we made it so that Direct requests
come to me
instead of to the local coordinator.
16 Jun
16 Jun
3:27 a.m.
New subject: block allocation
On 15 Jun 2016, at 21:23, Brian Kantor
<Brian(a)UCSD.Edu> wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
I suppose the portal could be modified so that when a local coordinator
approves a Direct request, the approval notice isn't sent to the
requestor but instead queues the request for subsequent approval
by the Direct coordinator (currently me). This is a significant
change in the way the portal works but might be the best solution.
Chris?
Entirely possible, yes. I will see what I can do.
Chris
5:14 p.m.
New subject: block allocation
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Brian Kantor <Brian(a)ucsd.edu> wrote:
Two or three times a week I get applications which
have simplemindedly
checked all three boxes.
The easy fix would be to just add a fourth checkbox called "I don't
know what I'm doing and just checking all the boxes." Those that
check the fourth box will get their application automatically denied
and redirected to further instructions. ;)
My serious suggestion would actually be... Replace only the "direct"
checkbox with a dropdown. There would only be two options:
none (default)
BGP (advanced)
It's a whole lot less likely someone's going to pick the "advanced"
option in favor of the "default" one if they don't know what it is.
6:15 p.m.
New subject: block allocation
Or perhaps you put the most common checkboxes on the form as visible with a
section below (initially hidden) that says "Advanced Options". Then
underneath this you list "Direct (BGP announcement)" or similar.
-Andrew
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Cory (NQ1E) <cory(a)nq1e.hm> wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Brian Kantor <Brian(a)ucsd.edu> wrote:
Two or three times a week I get applications
which have simplemindedly
checked all three boxes.
The easy fix would be to just add a fourth checkbox called "I don't
know what I'm doing and just checking all the boxes." Those that
check the fourth box will get their application automatically denied
and redirected to further instructions. ;)
My serious suggestion would actually be... Replace only the "direct"
checkbox with a dropdown. There would only be two options:
none (default)
BGP (advanced)
It's a whole lot less likely someone's going to pick the "advanced"
option in favor of the "default" one if they don't know what it is.
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
3080
days inactive
3081
days old
9 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Andrew Ragone (RIT Alumni) -
Boudewijn (Bob) Tenty -
Brian Kantor -
Bryan Fields -
Cory (NQ1E) -
G1FEF -
Rob Janssen -
Tim Osburn