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
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@laru.lu, "Marc, LX1DUC" lx1duc@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
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
Hello Andy Thanks for your kind comments.
Look forward to seeing more WWC amprnet realtime one to one convers activity Paul g4apl
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
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@laru.lu, "Marc, LX1DUC" lx1duc@laru.lu writes
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ 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 _________________________________________ 44Net mailing list 44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
On 28 November 2014 10:15:17 GMT, Paul Lewis paul@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
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@ntlworld.com, Steve Platt steve.platt@ntlworld.com writes
On 28 November 2014 10:15:17 GMT, Paul Lewis paul@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:
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@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@laru.lu, "Marc, LX1DUC" lx1duc@laru.lu writes
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ 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 _________________________________________ 44Net mailing list 44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
-- paul@skywaves.demon.co.uk _________________________________________ 44Net mailing list 44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
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.
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@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@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Michael E Fox - N6MEF n6mef@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
-
Andy Brittain -
Chris -
Marc, LX1DUC -
Michael E Fox - N6MEF -
Nigel Vander Houwen -
Paul Lewis -
Steve Platt -
Tom Hayward