[HamWAN PSDR] Internet Maintenance Notification

[Tom Hayward]

Hi Jann,

Our network is happy to receive your packets to 44.24.240.0/20 direct
via internet, or IPIP encapsulated via 44.24.221.1. This is a
published AMPR gateway (at least, it was listed in the encap a few
hours ago when I last checked).

We're not asking everyone to use BGP. In fact, we support packets from
public/BGP networks and IPIP encapsulated packets alike.

There is no spec that says gateways must be outside of 44.0.0.0/8. We
picked 44.24.221.1 as a gateway because it fit the needs of our
network only to discover later that it doesn't work with all AMPR
configurations. There is no technical reason for this limitation; it
merely comes down to configuration. I'd like to see the bugs worked
out of the configuration so that what we publish to AMPR is honored.
Our configuration conforms to the AMPR IPIP mesh design and works well
with many existing AMPR networks.

I don't know specifically why we can't communicate with your network.
If you have manually installed a route to 44.24.240.0/20, that may be
the problem. The route as defined in the AMPR encap file should work
just fine, or if you like, just send packets out the default gateway
and we will receive them via internet routing.

Tom KD7LXL

On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:07 PM, Jann Traschewski <jann at gmx.de> wrote:
> Ooops, it's my gateway. I'm well aware of a missing IPIP route
> (44.24.240.0/20 via 44.24.221.1 if I remember right) at DB0FHN. After
> half a year I did reboot the machine and didn't reinstall that route
> since I didn't expect anyone talking to us...
>
> The route 44.24.240.0/20 via 44.24.221.1 is very special since nobody
> else uses a 44-address as a gateway IP-address for now. Tom might
> remember my experiment to manually add this route at DB0FHN. The route
> is not published by the AMPR gateway and even if it would publish it, it
> would fail for most IPIP-gateways. So I'm pretty sure I was the only
> IPIP-gateway supporting communication to 44.24.240.0/20.
>
> Since DB0FHN is the core router for the IPIP net44 connectivity of the
> Hamnet, all Hamnet-Nodes doesn't have a special route to 44.24.240.0/20.
> However most Hamnet-Nodes can talk *to* 44.24.240.0/20 since packets
> will travel to their next default gateway in that particular region and
> then will be processed by SNAT/DNAT or Masqueradeing with commercial IP
> addresses. Of course that is not very useful for people coming *from*
> 44.24.240.0/20 trying to contact Hamnet-Nodes. That's one of the reason
> why I'm promoting the "amateur radio intranet" using net44-ip-addresses
> only...
>
> I even think it isn't very polite to keep asking the rest of the world
> to put BGP connected gateways in their area rather than to understand
> how many other hosts are really connected to net44 (it is *not* only
> some popular AMPR configuration scripts as my example above is showing).
> BGP connected gateways are very new in the AMPRNet world and the first
> thing I would be interested in if I start with BGP direct connected
> networks is "full connectivity" to all hosts on net44. Rather than to
> insist in support of IPIP-gateway addresses with net44-addresses I'm
> pretty sure there would be a solution to get a *single* commercial
> IP-address from the ISP for that purpose.
>
> I'm really open for respectful discussions and I'm also willing to move
> net44 forward (e.g. I support to have net44 IPIP gateways and did test
> the functionality at DB0FHN). We recently started to define ranges for
> BGP direct connected networks in our IP-address space and already have
> the permission to announce one network (two more to come). So we are
> constantly moving forward.
>
> What I'm missing on the net44 discussion list and especially on the
> #HamWAN Freenode IRC-channel is fair and respectful treatment of others.
>
> 73,
> Jann
> DG8NGN
> Ps: I'm going to install the 44.24.240.0/20 route again on Friday since
> I have a very important meeting at the european comission in Brussels
> regarding the 23-cm-band (Galileo).