Hello,
Beginning on March 15th, the pseudo-RIP transmissions from amprgw will include the various subnet prefixes which are being advertised by BGP. They will show a next-hop address of 169.228.34.84, which is amprgw.
Marius assures me that this will cause no harm, and will enable tunnel-only AMPRNet hosts to reach those destinations via the tunnel. He says that many tunnel-connected hosts have a semi-default route to amprgw that has to be manually installed when the system is set up; this would now be automatic when employing the various ampr-rip programs.
Quoting Marius:
So, wouldn't it make sense to publish BGP routed networks that do not have 'tunnel ' set in the portal as RIP routes using amprgw as gateway?
This would solve some issues: - Users could actually see all reachable destinations in their route list
- Users could easily identify BGP networks by checking 169.228.34.84 as their gateway
- they could drop the setting of that 'default' route in the ampr routing table, allowing a (implicit) throw to the main table. This will make it easier to reach local or directly connected ampr networks (which now need routes placed in the ampr table). Also, unknown destinations would be NATed to the system's gateway, without putting any additional traffic to amprgw.
- it would also allow to have all routes in a single routing table while being able to reach tunneled and BGPd networks using their AMPR address without policy routing.
Existing set-ups would not affected by such a change in any way.
Marius, YO2LOJ
Please be sure to let me know if there are any problems with this change; it can be reverted in a matter of moments if an unexpected difficulty does arise. - Brian
Le 11/03/2019 à 01:12, Brian Kantor a écrit :
Beginning on March 15th, the pseudo-RIP transmissions from amprgw will include the various subnet prefixes which are being advertised by BGP. They will show a next-hop address of 169.228.34.84, which is amprgw.
Hi,
Does this include the new 44.190.0.0/16 subnet, which is intended to host Internet-connected stuff, such as Echolink, DMR, XLX, etc ?
I would probably say "no"... But I have very few experience with ripd tunnels, so I can not say if that could be useful or not...
For people who can't deal with local routing tables, maybe it's better to have "long path" connectivity through amprgw than no connectivity at all... But using such a path for VoIP does not seem to be a good idea...
73 de TK1BI
Steve, VK5ASF, has very correctly pointed out a case where this proposed change would cause problems. Marius concurs, and therefore I have decided to cancel the planned change. The RIP transmissions will NOT begin to include the BGP routes on March 15th.
NO CHANGE WILL BE MADE.
Thank you to both Steve and Marius for bringing this problem to my attention.
Please accept my apologies for any confusion that may have occured.
Best wishes and 73 to all, - Brian
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 10:25:23AM +0100, Toussaint OTTAVI wrote:
Le 11/03/2019 à 01:12, Brian Kantor a écrit :
Beginning on March 15th, the pseudo-RIP transmissions from amprgw will include the various subnet prefixes which are being advertised by BGP. They will show a next-hop address of 169.228.34.84, which is amprgw.
Hi,
Does this include the new 44.190.0.0/16 subnet, which is intended to host Internet-connected stuff, such as Echolink, DMR, XLX, etc ?
I would probably say "no"... But I have very few experience with ripd tunnels, so I can not say if that could be useful or not...
For people who can't deal with local routing tables, maybe it's better to have "long path" connectivity through amprgw than no connectivity at all... But using such a path for VoIP does not seem to be a good idea...
73 de TK1BI
44Net mailing list 44Net@mailman.ampr.org https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
Hi,
Le 11/03/2019 à 11:02, Brian Kantor a écrit :
Steve, VK5ASF, has very correctly pointed out a case where this proposed change would cause problems.
Please, just for our knowledge and understanding in all possible situations, could you tell us more about the problems the change would have caused ?
73 de TK1BI
I would like Steve and Marius to describe their findings, as I believe my understanding is as yet incomplete. - Brian
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 10:53:25AM +0100, Toussaint OTTAVI wrote:
Hi,
Le 11/03/2019 à 11:02, Brian Kantor a écrit :
Steve, VK5ASF, has very correctly pointed out a case where this proposed change would cause problems.
Please, just for our knowledge and understanding in all possible situations, could you tell us more about the problems the change would have caused ?
73 de TK1BI
Heloo all,
The issue is actually simple one:
If you have a 44net subnet behind your router, machines that do not have DNS entries at ampr.org will not be able to reach BGPed networks, because amprgw requires any host passing traffic through it must have such a DNS entry.
At the moment, simply removing the default route in your ampr table solves this and routes those hosts vis ISP NAT.
By automatically creating individual routes for BGP subnets make this a little more diffcult, and breaks existing working setups. Even if this is not a big issue for people with good networking knowledge, it breaks things for those that should have expected a simpler setup and are not profficient in networking, contrary to the initial goal of the proposal.
73s de Marius, YO2LOJ
On 12.03.2019 12:11, Brian Kantor wrote:
I would like Steve and Marius to describe their findings, as I believe my understanding is as yet incomplete.
- Brian
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 10:53:25AM +0100, Toussaint OTTAVI wrote:
Hi,
Le 11/03/2019 à 11:02, Brian Kantor a écrit :
Steve, VK5ASF, has very correctly pointed out a case where this proposed change would cause problems.
Please, just for our knowledge and understanding in all possible situations, could you tell us more about the problems the change would have caused ?
73 de TK1BI
44Net mailing list 44Net@mailman.ampr.org https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
-
Brian Kantor -
Marius Petrescu -
Toussaint OTTAVI