On 4/11/14, 12:04 PM, Bart Kus wrote:
Well, IPIP itself is not the problem. It avoids the costs of Internet BGP peering. What is a problem is the lack of dead-peer-detection between IPIP gateways. If intra-AMPR BGP peering was actually deployed as part of the general recommendations then we wouldn't need to anycast to achieve redundancy. But as it stands, the deployed technologies are very light, and anycasting our IPIP endpoint is the easiest way to achieve the desired redundancy. We do plan to make special BGP+IPSec arrangements with select AMPRnet peers to further improve our availability and security, but there's no need to do any of that work on the mailing list.
I'd say we should keep it on the mailing list. I'm very interested in what others are doing with BGP announced AMPRnet space!
I'd be interested in interconnecting if you need a gateway or something. I've got a good relationship with my upstream in Tampa. Granted the latency to WA is a bit much :)
FWIW I'll be in Belview for NANOG 61 in June.
I'll also should be at Nanog in Bellevue June 2-4th https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog61/home
Tim Osburn www.osburn.com 206.812.6214 W7RSZ
On Fri, 11 Apr 2014, Bryan Fields wrote:
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 12:10:22 -0400 From: Bryan Fields Bryan@bryanfields.net Reply-To: AMPRNet working group 44net@hamradio.ucsd.edu To: AMPRNet working group 44net@hamradio.ucsd.edu Subject: Re: [44net] AMPRNet BGP vs non-BGP routing
FWIW I'll be in Belview for NANOG 61 in June.
On Apr 11, 2014, at 12:10 PM, Bryan Fields Bryan@bryanfields.net wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ On 4/11/14, 12:04 PM, Bart Kus wrote:
Well, IPIP itself is not the problem. It avoids the costs of Internet BGP peering. What is a problem is the lack of dead-peer-detection between IPIP gateways. If intra-AMPR BGP peering was actually deployed as part of the general recommendations then we wouldn't need to anycast to achieve redundancy. But as it stands, the deployed technologies are very light, and anycasting our IPIP endpoint is the easiest way to achieve the desired redundancy. We do plan to make special BGP+IPSec arrangements with select AMPRnet peers to further improve our availability and security, but there's no need to do any of that work on the mailing list.
I'd say we should keep it on the mailing list. I'm very interested in what others are doing with BGP announced AMPRnet space!
I have a /24 out of 44/8, which I announce in the Washington DC area (Equinix DC2), it has one of the core APRS-IS servers (fifth.aprs.net in particular) and other peering points around the world (AS 8121).
I'd be interested in interconnecting if you need a gateway or something. I've got a good relationship with my upstream in Tampa. Granted the latency to WA is a bit much :)
Yes, same here.
73, -jav k4jh
-
Bryan Fields -
Javier Henderson (javier) -
Tim Osburn