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
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@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
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
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.
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
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.
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.
On 15 Jun 2016, at 21:23, Brian Kantor Brian@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
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Brian Kantor Brian@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.
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@nq1e.hm wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Brian Kantor Brian@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@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
-
Andrew Ragone (RIT Alumni) -
Boudewijn (Bob) Tenty -
Brian Kantor -
Bryan Fields -
Cory (NQ1E) -
G1FEF -
Rob Janssen -
Tim Osburn