15 Aug
2013
15 Aug
'13
4:31 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
while analyzing the routing table on my Mikrotik router, I noticed
that there are 2 gateways for 44.136.0.0/21:
114.198.116.219
203.5.58.162
The encap file has both as well:
route addprivate 44.136/21 encap 203.5.58.162
route addprivate 44.136/21 encap 114.198.116.219
I have tried to create 2 routes for some of my networks via the
portal, but the portal complains with the words "The network overlaps
an existing entry".
I'm now interested to know, if these 2 routes are intended to
co-exist? If yes, how can one create those entries via the portal.
If no, which one is correct and why are there 2 entries?
73 de Marc, LX1DUC
- --
http://lx1duc.mcs.tel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/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=invI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
15 Aug
15 Aug
4:54 p.m.
Hi Marc,
No, there should not be two entries for one route and the portal should not allow this to
happen, so I will look into how it occurred and amend the code as necessary.
Thanks,
Chris
On 15 Aug 2013, at 10:31, "Marc, LX1DUC" <lx1duc(a)rlx.lu> wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
while analyzing the routing table on my Mikrotik router, I noticed
that there are 2 gateways for 44.136.0.0/21:
114.198.116.219
203.5.58.162
The encap file has both as well:
route addprivate 44.136/21 encap 203.5.58.162
route addprivate 44.136/21 encap 114.198.116.219
I have tried to create 2 routes for some of my networks via the
portal, but the portal complains with the words "The network overlaps
an existing entry".
I'm now interested to know, if these 2 routes are intended to
co-exist? If yes, how can one create those entries via the portal.
If no, which one is correct and why are there 2 entries?
73 de Marc, LX1DUC
- --
http://lx1duc.mcs.tel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/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=invI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
http://www.ampr.org/donate.html 
5:23 p.m.
are these 2 entries for a single route or 2 separate routes to a single
destination? It seems to me they are actually separate redundant routes to
the same /21. should redundant routes not be allowed? It would seem quite
the reverse that redundancy being useful and importaint these ought to be
allowed to stand so long as they are valid routes to the specified /21.
Eric
AF6EP
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 2:54 AM, G1FEF <chris(a)g1fef.co.uk> wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
Hi Marc,
No, there should not be two entries for one route and the portal should
not allow this to happen, so I will look into how it occurred and amend the
code as necessary.
Thanks,
Chris
On 15 Aug 2013, at 10:31, "Marc, LX1DUC" <lx1duc(a)rlx.lu> wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
while analyzing the routing table on my Mikrotik router, I noticed
that there are 2 gateways for 44.136.0.0/21:
114.198.116.219
203.5.58.162
The encap file has both as well:
route addprivate 44.136/21 encap 203.5.58.162
route addprivate 44.136/21 encap 114.198.116.219
I have tried to create 2 routes for some of my networks via the
portal, but the portal complains with the words "The network overlaps
an existing entry".
I'm now interested to know, if these 2 routes are intended to
co-exist? If yes, how can one create those entries via the portal.
If no, which one is correct and why are there 2 entries?
73 de Marc, LX1DUC
- --
http://lx1duc.mcs.tel
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
http://www.ampr.org/donate.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/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=invI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
http://www.ampr.org/donate.html 
9:55 p.m.
No they shouldn't both be allowed. There isn't a way to dynamically choose the
route based on whether one or the other connection is up. Packets sent to the
down route are simply lost.
Regards,
Bob
"Eric Fort <eric.fort(a)gmail.com> says:"
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
are these 2 entries for a single route or 2 separate routes to a single
destination? It seems to me they are actually separate redundant routes to
the same /21. should redundant routes not be allowed? It would seem quite
the reverse that redundancy being useful and importaint these ought to be
allowed to stand so long as they are valid routes to the specified /21.
Eric
AF6EP
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 2:54 AM, G1FEF <chris(a)g1fef.co.uk> wrote:
> (Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
> _______________________________________________
> Hi Marc,
>
> No, there should not be two entries for one route and the portal should
> not allow this to happen, so I will look into how it occurred and amend the
> code as necessary.
>
> Thanks,
> Chris
--
/~\ The ASCII | Bob Brose N0QBJ
\ / Ribbon Campaign | http://www.qbjnet.com/
X Help cure | mailto:bob@qbjnet.com
/ \ HTML Email | public key at http://www.qbjnet.com/key.html
There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who
don't
9:59 p.m.
No least cost path routing for IP like MX records?
No they shouldn't both be allowed. There isn't
a way to dynamically choose the
route based on whether one or the other connection is up. Packets sent to the
down route are simply lost.
--
Charles J. Hargrove - N2NOV
NYC ARECS/RACES Citywide Radio Officer/Skywarn Coord.
NYC-ARECS/RACES Net Mon. @ 8:30PM 147.360/107.2 PL
http://www.nyc-arecs.org and http://www.nyc-skywarn.org
NYDXA SWL & Scanner Net Wed. @ 9PM 147.360/107.2 PL
http://www.n2nov.net
"Information is the oxygen of the modern age. It seeps through the walls topped
by barbed wire, it wafts across the electrified borders." - Ronald Reagan
"The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates." - Tacitus
"Molann an obair an fear" - Irish Saying
(The work praises the man.)
"No matter how big and powerful government gets, and the many services it
provides, it can never take the place of volunteers." - Ronald Reagan
11:01 p.m.
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:59:55AM -0400, Charles Hargrove wrote:
No least cost path routing for IP like MX records?
No, because of a fundamental difference. The SMTP protocol is a
higher-level one which uses TCP connections which of course have a status
of succeeded or not, so if a connection specified by an MX record does
not succeed (is refused, etc) the mailer can try an alternate.
IP is much lower level and has no such status: packets are not
acknowledged at the IP level so there may be no notification that a packet
has not reached its destination. There is no way at the IP level to
tell that a particular route isn't working and to therefore try another.
There are proposed mechanisms to allow a choice of routes (RSPF, OSPF,
etc), but none of them have been implemented on AMPRNet and the existing
encap scheme doesn't allow for them (yet).
- Brian
11:59 p.m.
Is there a workaround to this, that would allow a remote site to
access net44 directly via it's Internet connection, but fall back on a
Microwave link if its Internet failed?
The only solution that I've been able to think of that would work in a
timely manner is using an OpenVPN server to handle all my net44
routing. This allows me to use OpenVPN's routing mechanisms to create
more advanced networks, but requires a colo machine with costs me
about $15 a month.
So far I've been able to get net44 routed into my colo machine
(44.4.36.1) and connect up my iPhone and MacBook Pro to that subnet as
VPN clients. Routing between those three machines and out to the rest
of net44 seems to be working (mostly). I'm a bit stalled out right
now until I get my microwave gear in the mail.
Any cheaper solutions out there??
Blaine
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 15, 2013, at 9:02 AM, Brian Kantor <Brian(a)ucsd.edu> wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:59:55AM -0400, Charles Hargrove wrote:
No least cost path routing for IP like MX
records?
No, because of a fundamental difference. The SMTP protocol is a
higher-level one which uses TCP connections which of course have a status
of succeeded or not, so if a connection specified by an MX record does
not succeed (is refused, etc) the mailer can try an alternate.
IP is much lower level and has no such status: packets are not
acknowledged at the IP level so there may be no notification that a packet
has not reached its destination. There is no way at the IP level to
tell that a particular route isn't working and to therefore try another.
There are proposed mechanisms to allow a choice of routes (RSPF, OSPF,
etc), but none of them have been implemented on AMPRNet and the existing
encap scheme doesn't allow for them (yet).
- Brian
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
http://www.ampr.org/donate.html 
11:06 p.m.
As far as I'm aware, only through BGP. If you have access to a core cisco router, you
can do something like
sh ip bgp 1.2.3.4
and see the multiple routes for an address (if they have some).
Regards,
Bob
"Charles Hargrove <n2nov(a)n2nov.net> says:"
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
No least cost path routing for IP like MX records?
--
/~\ The ASCII | Bob Brose N0QBJ
\ / Ribbon Campaign | http://www.qbjnet.com/
X Help cure | mailto:bob@qbjnet.com
/ \ HTML Email | public key at http://www.qbjnet.com/key.html
There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who
don't
No they shouldn't both be allowed. There
isn't a way to dynamically choose the
route based on whether one or the other connection is up. Packets sent to the
down route are simply lost.
--
Charles J. Hargrove - N2NOV
NYC ARECS/RACES Citywide Radio Officer/Skywarn Coord. 
16 Aug
16 Aug
1:13 a.m.
You can also use a BGP LookingGlass server via the web and there are
MANY of them out there:
http://www.bgp4.as/looking-glasses
I personally find Hurricane Electric's UI the easiest to use, it
supports IPv6, etc.
http://lg.he.net/
--David
27 Aug
27 Aug
3:33 p.m.
ok, multiple static routes to the same place I can see why not. We do have
dynamic routing available to us though via RIP. Would RIP or another
routing protocol not handle this in the case of the route being unreliable
and drop that route? Why must routes be persistent rather than dynamic?
In a larger sense and I realize we're not there yet it would seem that
rather than having to know the routes to all other 44net hosts from boot it
would be much easier to have each area (for instance each /16 or maybe in
some cases each /24) to have a designated router (say at .1) or possibly
use multicast to discover one's local router. thus the initial config is
simplified as it has a single route to the 44net gateway for it's area from
which it may discover via dynamic routing other routes. no more need to
manually distribute and update a routing table. This seems to be something
to work towards.
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 7:55 AM, <Bob(a)qbjnet.com> wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
No they shouldn't both be allowed. There isn't a way to dynamically choose
the
route based on whether one or the other connection is up. Packets sent to
the
down route are simply lost.
Regards,
Bob
"Eric Fort <eric.fort(a)gmail.com> says:"
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
are these 2 entries for a single route or 2 separate routes to a single
destination? It seems to me they are actually separate redundant routes
to
the same /21. should redundant routes not be
allowed? It would seem
quite
the reverse that redundancy being useful and
importaint these ought to be
allowed to stand so long as they are valid routes to the specified /21.
Eric
AF6EP
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 2:54 AM, G1FEF <chris(a)g1fef.co.uk> wrote:
> (Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
> _______________________________________________
> Hi Marc,
>
> No, there should not be two entries for one route and the portal should
> not allow this to happen, so I will look into how it occurred and
amend the
> code as necessary.
>
> Thanks,
> Chris
--
/~\ The ASCII | Bob Brose N0QBJ
\ / Ribbon Campaign | http://www.qbjnet.com/
X Help cure | mailto:bob@qbjnet.com
/ \ HTML Email | public key at http://www.qbjnet.com/key.html
There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand
binary, and those who don't
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
http://www.ampr.org/donate.html
4135
days inactive
4147
days old
9 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
Blaine Forbort -
Bob Brose -
Bob＠qbjnet.com -
Brian Kantor -
Charles Hargrove -
David Ranch -
Eric Fort -
G1FEF -
Marc, LX1DUC