25 Nov
2014
25 Nov
'14
11:17 p.m.
Good afternoon,
in the original layout it was possible to add any network to a gateway.
Now you can only add networks assigned to the account holding the
gateway, at the same time it seems impossible to add a gateway more than
once or to share a gateway between several network holders.
While I agree that users should be unable to add foreign networks to
their gateway, it also creates an issue where several OMs decided to
share 1 single gateway for various reasons.
Can someone please advise how to share a gateway between several
resource holders under the current portal design and logic?
vy 73
--
Marc, LX1DUC
--
www.laru.lu - Luxembourg Amateur Radio Union
www.emcomm.services - Emergency Communication
www.ham-dmr.lu - DMR Infos for HAMs
25 Nov
25 Nov
11:27 p.m.
Yes Marc, I encountered the same issue yesterday.
Hence I just got round that by deleting my account using the V6 robot
and recreating the entry with the other OM's network subnet that
he wanted to route via my gateway. The online Portal would not allow me
to otherwise make the change.
Paul g4apl
In message <7a2e30efdb9271fb27bf18fff04c36ea(a)laru.lu>lu>, "Marc, LX1DUC"
<lx1duc(a)laru.lu> writes
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
Good afternoon,
in the original layout it was possible to add any network to a gateway.
Now you can only add networks assigned to the account holding the
gateway, at the same time it seems impossible to add a gateway more
than once or to share a gateway between several network holders.
While I agree that users should be unable to add foreign networks to
their gateway, it also creates an issue where several OMs decided to
share 1 single gateway for various reasons.
Can someone please advise how to share a gateway between several
resource holders under the current portal design and logic?
vy 73
--
paul(a)skywaves.demon.co.uk
11:38 p.m.
New subject: Welcome back
Welcome back Paul, we missed your packets…
I can ping you again from my home server on 44.131.243.3 which connects to 44 net through
my OpenVPN gateway at work :-)
Very happy to have it all working again, both sides of the link self monitor and restart
if there’s a failure.
Now to install the services… and actually connect a radio !
Hopefully you will see me back on convers soon.
Andy
26 Nov
26 Nov
12:04 a.m.
New subject: Welcome back
Hello Andy
Thanks for your kind comments.
Look forward to seeing more WWC amprnet realtime one to one convers
activity
Paul g4apl
--
paul(a)skywaves.demon.co.uk
28 Nov
28 Nov
4:42 p.m.
On 2014-11-25 17:27, Paul Lewis wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
Yes Marc, I encountered the same issue yesterday.
Hence I just got round that by deleting my account using the V6 robot
and recreating the entry with the other OM's network subnet that
he wanted to route via my gateway. The online Portal would not allow
me to otherwise make the change.
Paul g4apl
Hello Paul,
I don't understand exactly how you solved the issue in your case. Did
you update your gateway entry via email?
73 de Marc
5:15 p.m.
Hello Mark
Yes I originally did it (when I replied) using the Robot.
The 'amprnet developers' have NOW caught up with me/us.
Now my hosted gateway partners are cut off from the amprnet network
At least we are testing point to point as they build there systems.
Reminds me of the late 1960's early 1970's with our
Cobol Developers <viz> our customers/operations requirements [big_grin]
Paul
In message <4592c73cd85107cbcc803af3befbfbda(a)laru.lu>lu>, "Marc, LX1DUC"
<lx1duc(a)laru.lu> writes
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
On 2014-11-25 17:27, Paul Lewis wrote:
--
paul(a)skywaves.demon.co.uk
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
Yes Marc, I encountered the same issue yesterday.
Hence I just got round that by deleting my account using the V6
robot
and recreating the entry with the other OM's network subnet that
he wanted to route via my gateway. The online Portal would not allow
me to otherwise make the change.
Paul g4apl
Hello Paul,
I don't understand exactly how you solved the issue in your case. Did
you update your gateway entry via email?
73 de Marc
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net 
5:55 p.m.
On 28 November 2014 10:15:17 GMT, Paul Lewis <paul(a)skywaves.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Reminds me of the late 1960's early 1970's with our
Cobol Developers <viz> our customers/operations requirements [big_grin]
Well software developers have always had an "air gap" between themselves and
their victims^wcustomers ;-)
You will have seen the original but here is an updated (read: coloured in) version of a
cartoon that went around in those days.
I am assuming that old-timers are allowed to stray off-topic on a ham radio list!?
http://johngushue.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451f25369e20120a513810c970b-pi
Also closer to the original but with bilingual explanation:
http://www.businessballs.com/treeswing.htm
--
Steve Platt
6:05 p.m.
YES - Remember those images pn our 'Training Courses/manuals' of that
era'
Thanks for the reminder, keeps our Grey Cells active. [Grin]
Paul
In message <B3C0DFA7-AB0A-438D-8CBD-AA9232367151(a)ntlworld.com>om>, Steve
Platt <steve.platt(a)ntlworld.com> writes
On 28 November 2014 10:15:17 GMT, Paul Lewis
<paul(a)skywaves.demon.co.uk> wrote:
--
paul(a)skywaves.demon.co.uk
Reminds me of the late 1960's early 1970's with our
Cobol Developers <viz> our customers/operations requirements [big_grin]
Well software developers have always had an "air gap" between
themselves and their victims^wcustomers ;-)
You will have seen the original but here is an updated (read: coloured
in) version of a cartoon that went around in those days.
I am assuming that old-timers are allowed to stray off-topic on a ham
radio list!?
http://johngushue.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451f25369e20120a513810c970b-pi
Also closer to the original but with bilingual explanation:
http://www.businessballs.com/treeswing.htm 
29 Nov
29 Nov
2:13 a.m.
Guys,
The intention was not to cut anyone off, but there were a lot of folk adding 44 networks
to gateways that had not been allocated to them, or indeed allocated at all. The whole
point of the Portal is to document who has been allocated (and is using) what IPs. So the
gateway code has been updated to only allow allocated networks to be added to gateways.
I hadn’t realised that people were “managing” gateways on behalf of others, so I will work
on some code to allow the allocatee (trying to avoid the word owner!) to authorise another
portal user to add their network to a gateway.
In the meantime, if there are any networks you need adding just drop me an email and I
will add them manually. I should have the code to allow you to do this sorted within the
next few days (3 to 5 depending on my commercial workload).
As with anything on the portal, if there’s a problem, you only need ask :-)
73,
Chris
On 28 Nov 2014, at 10:15, Paul Lewis
<paul(a)skywaves.demon.co.uk> wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
Hello Mark
Yes I originally did it (when I replied) using the Robot.
The 'amprnet developers' have NOW caught up with me/us.
Now my hosted gateway partners are cut off from the amprnet network
At least we are testing point to point as they build there systems.
Reminds me of the late 1960's early 1970's with our
Cobol Developers <viz> our customers/operations requirements [big_grin]
Paul
In message <4592c73cd85107cbcc803af3befbfbda(a)laru.lu>lu>, "Marc, LX1DUC"
<lx1duc(a)laru.lu> writes
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
On 2014-11-25 17:27, Paul Lewis wrote:
--
paul(a)skywaves.demon.co.uk
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net (Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
Yes Marc, I encountered the same issue yesterday.
Hence I just got round that by deleting my account using the V6 robot
and recreating the entry with the other OM's network subnet that
he wanted to route via my gateway. The online Portal would not allow
me to otherwise make the change.
Paul g4apl
Hello Paul,
I don't understand exactly how you solved the issue in your case. Did you update your
gateway entry via email?
73 de Marc
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net 
2:27 a.m.
Thanks for all your work, Chris.
RE your new code for managing by others:
In our situation, we have a team of sysops that work on our BBSs. I've done all the
portal registration up to this point. But it would be ideal if others on the team could
manage them as well. The subtlety here is that this is not a strict delegation (where I
would no longer be able to manage them), but a shared responsibility where any of us would
be able to update the same records. Hopefully you can incorporate that use case into your
new code.
Michael
N6MEF
-----Original Message-----
I hadn’t realised that people were “managing” gateways on behalf of
others, so I will work on some code to allow the allocatee (trying to
avoid the word owner!) to authorise another portal user to add their
network to a gateway.
2:37 a.m.
The use case of multiple admins managing subnets would be useful for our organization as
well. We don’t often need changes, so it’s not a significant issue, but does remove the
single point of contact/failure in terms of managing them.
Nigel
K7NVH
On Nov 28, 2014, at 11:27 AM, Michael E Fox - N6MEF
<n6mef(a)mefox.org> wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
Thanks for all your work, Chris.
RE your new code for managing by others:
In our situation, we have a team of sysops that work on our BBSs. I've done all the
portal registration up to this point. But it would be ideal if others on the team could
manage them as well. The subtlety here is that this is not a strict delegation (where I
would no longer be able to manage them), but a shared responsibility where any of us would
be able to update the same records. Hopefully you can incorporate that use case into your
new code.
Michael
N6MEF
-----Original Message-----
I hadn’t realised that people were “managing” gateways on behalf of
others, so I will work on some code to allow the allocatee (trying to
avoid the word owner!) to authorise another portal user to add their
network to a gateway.
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net 
4:47 a.m.
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Michael E Fox - N6MEF <n6mef(a)mefox.org> wrote:
In our situation, we have a team of sysops that work
on our BBSs. I've done all the portal registration up to this point. But it would be
ideal if others on the team could manage them as well. The subtlety here is that this is
not a strict delegation (where I would no longer be able to manage them), but a shared
responsibility where any of us would be able to update the same records. Hopefully you
can incorporate that use case into your new code.
I think the best solution here it to make the User-Network
relationship many-to-many. This would keep us from having to share
passwords between the multiple admins in our network.
Tom KD7LXL
3677
days inactive
3680
days old
11 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Andy Brittain -
Chris -
Marc, LX1DUC -
Michael E Fox - N6MEF -
Nigel Vander Houwen -
Paul Lewis -
Steve Platt -
Tom Hayward