[HamWAN PSDR] 44.x.x.x HamWAN network at Paine
Dean Gibson AE7Q
hamwan at ae7q.com
Sun Apr 27 19:12:32 PDT 2014
Which RP2D? K7LWH or NR7SS? I heard you on K7LWH DV-A ...
Did you read the Icom and/or K5TIT documentation? [Lurkers: that's my
idea of humor ...]
ps: John: Since an Icom gateway is dual-homed at 10.0.0.2 (Internet
gateway 10.0.0.1) and 172.16.0.20, if one wants to put another box on
the local 10.x.x.x network, are there any 10.x.x.x addresses that are
reserved/available for local use, without being assigned/preempted by
the US Trust system? Otherwise, I suppose I could do port-forwarding on
the box into the 172.16.x.x network, and allocate one there ...
On 2014-04-27 19:02, John D. Hays wrote:
> BTW, I through a bunch of packets at the RP2D. I think it was
> replying but I wasn't able to get IP level responses.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> John D. Hays
> K7VE
> PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223
> <http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#%21/john_hays>
> <http://www.facebook.com/john.d.hays>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Dean Gibson AE7Q <hamwan at ae7q.com
> <mailto:hamwan at ae7q.com>> wrote:
>
> I had to Google to find out what P2MP was, but in my VERY brief
> Google education on the subject, I don't think it applies.
>
> The radio doesn't multiplex anything.
>
> The consumer-grade routers I own (Linksys BEFSR41, Netgear
> WGT624v2) seem to have no way to turn off NAT. dd-wrt is not
> possible with the BEFSR41; it is "work-in-progress" for the
> WGT624v2. NAT seems to make routing issues a little more complex
> to think through. Both routers have the ability to specify a "DMZ
> host", but I think that just turns on universal NAT to that host.
> Both routers have the capability of manually adding entries to a
> static routing table, but I don't know if that skips over the
> NAT. If we have to have NAT, it seems to me that the best way to
> set up the router is with the radio connected to the LAN side
> (with whatever private IP address we want), and have the WAN side
> connected to the 44.x.x.x network. That allows incoming (ie, via
> the radio) packets to go wherever they can and responses to come
> back; whereas orienting the router the other way (unless we use
> the "DMZ host" feature) doesn't. I suppose I could donate one of
> my (very) elderly (2005) Dell PowerEdge 1650 1U servers to the
> effort, but that seems like a bit of overkill ...
>
> What I think would be a good idea is to meet and discuss this
> face-to-face (pretty much anytime) with diagrams, rather than
> shoveling eMails back and forth. Scott, if your schedule permits,
> you are more than welcome.
>
> -- Dean
>
> ps: Scott, I plan to come to the DEM on Tuesday to start on this,
> unless you're not going to be there, or other conditions (like
> ongoing slide work) make it a bad idea.
>
>
> On 2014-04-27 12:06, Bart Kus wrote:
>> OK, we can slap some extra security on there. Shouldn't need an
>> extra router for that.
>>
>> What about the PtMP story? One of the advantages you mentioned
>> (Dean) was mobile access. Can it multiplex access somehow?
>>
>> --Bart
>>
>>
>> On 4/27/2014 9:53 AM, Dean Gibson AE7Q wrote:
>>> Exactly (or the equivalent).
>>>
>>> On 2014-04-27 09:34, John Hays wrote:
>>>> It should be on a dedicated router on its own segment.
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 27, 2014, at 9:27 AM, Dean Gibson AE7Q <hamwan at ae7q.com
>>>> <mailto:hamwan at ae7q.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The only "authentication" the radio has, are the following:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. The radio can be set to only receive remote transmissions
>>>>> that include a two-digit decimal code; *or*
>>>>> 2. The radio can be set to only receive remote transmissions
>>>>> that are addressed to the callsign programmed into the
>>>>> receiving radio (I would recommend this setting).
>>>>>
>>>>> Any other authentication would have to be provided by a router
>>>>> or firewall.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2014-04-26 22:39, Bart Kus wrote:
>>>>>> Any packets on that LAN are considered trusted since they
>>>>>> passed authentication. What's the auth story on the 23cm
>>>>>> modems?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --Bart
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/26/2014 10:37 PM, Tom Hayward wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Dean Gibson AE7Q
>>>>>>> <hamwan at ae7q.com> <mailto:hamwan at ae7q.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> At the Snohomish County DEM, place a router (or bridge)
>>>>>>>> between the ID-1 and the 44.24.240.x network.
>>>>>>>> In this scenario, the ID-1 located at my house would also
>>>>>>>> be connected to a router that acts as though it were
>>>>>>>> directly connected to the 44.24.240.x (or any other)
>>>>>>>> network at the DEM.
>>>>>>> We have a router at Snohomish County DEM with an extra port
>>>>>>> that could be used for this. The subnet there is
>>>>>>> 44.24.240.128 <tel:44.24.240.128>/28. We have another subnet
>>>>>>> of address pairs set aside for router-to-router links. So as
>>>>>>> far as networking goes, we could execute your plan. I can't
>>>>>>> commend about the feasibility of any of the other bits.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tom
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PSDR mailing list
>>> PSDR at hamwan.org <mailto:PSDR at hamwan.org>
>>> http://mail.hamwan.org/mailman/listinfo/psdr_hamwan.org
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PSDR mailing list
>> PSDR at hamwan.org <mailto:PSDR at hamwan.org>
>> http://mail.hamwan.org/mailman/listinfo/psdr_hamwan.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PSDR mailing list
> PSDR at hamwan.org <mailto:PSDR at hamwan.org>
> http://mail.hamwan.org/mailman/listinfo/psdr_hamwan.org
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PSDR mailing list
> PSDR at hamwan.org
> http://mail.hamwan.org/mailman/listinfo/psdr_hamwan.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.hamwan.net/pipermail/psdr/attachments/20140427/9e4a3a82/attachment.html>
More information about the PSDR
mailing list