[HamGateNY] Current NY State DNS Entries

Mon Jan 30 17:09:00 EST 2017

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Brian <n1uro at n1uro.ampr.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 2017-01-30 at 15:45 -0500, Corey Reichle wrote:
>
> > While that may be true, that is neither hither, nor thither regarding
> > the NYS network.
>
> NYS in regards to RF falls under the scope of EastNet. It has since the
> 80's. It is "hither and thither".
>
>
>
My subnet has no relationship to EastNet, and until recently, I had only an
inkling it existed.

> > I fail to see what that has to do with the price of tea in China.
>
> I expected such an answer.
>
>
Of course.  Because nobody here is talking about being an ISP.

>
> > It doesn't need that.  It's desired, due to the "not invented here"
> > syndrome that plagues many ham activities.  If the manager of the 44/8
> > network is willing to do so, any number of points in the NYS network
> > could be bridged over a VPN tunnel into there, and appropriate routing
> > decisions made at that point (ie, based on link costing).  Or, two
> > designated points in NYS could be the uplink.  Or, none, and for
> > example, myself, being close to PA might have a route to the PA
> > network via RF, which might have a route to the wider network.
> >
> >
> "not invented here"? Who on earth said that? With that said, we're
> talking about wire here no? Keep this in mind for future reference.
> I *really* don't think you fully understand the ARDC, 44-net, or even
> amprgate and it's function. If you want 44/8 to do what YOU wish it to
> do, purchase the block! NO IP on 44/8 is OWNED by any single ham! If you
> don't like it, buy your own block. In that regard it's very simple.
>
>
Yes, NIH.  As far as the 44/8 net is concerned, IMO, it's an IP space
reserved for amateur usage, and Brian Kantor is the manager of the block.
AMPRGATE is there to be able to act as the AS for the address block.

You are correct.  No single ham owns any of the addresses, they are
allocated much like many DCs I operate are allocated blocks of address
space.

Personally, I would like to see the 44/8 net space, as a whole, operate as
a modern network functions.  If not that level, I would like to see the NYS
AMPR network do so.  In any case, I will not be employing any kludges just
to get my network routed somewhere, as I am more than happy to coordinate
with individual network operators, and set up peering arrangements with
them.  Using industry standard routing and bridging protocols.

So, if I don't like it, I can just continue to do what I'm doing:  Using
the block I was allocated for my own experimental needs.

> I also never stated the *only* method of connectivity is ipip, I said
> it's the ONLY one that ARCD provides. There's a HUGE difference that
> only that of a closed mind would fail to have recognized.
>
>
And that's fine.  At this time, it's the only manner ARCD provides.  That
doesn't mean it's set into stone, and unchanging.  The best way to convince
ARCD to employ another method is to show (By use) it's better.

> > Of course, this is presuming a modern, link-state routing protocol is
> > used, such as OLSR, or OSPF.  Or, even doable with static routing.
> > All negating the need for any of this.
> >
> Since 99.9% if ISPs filter this, along with IS-IS, how do you propose to
> pass this? At this point are you talking wire or RF? Since wire only at
> this point was mentioned, I can only assume that... and I wish not to
> assume.
>
>
Well, seeing as anything going over the public internet would be tunneled
in the IPSec tunnel, they wouldn't be able to stop any of it, as route
adverts would be sent to neighboring peers, via their links.  Just like it
works in every large-scale network on the planet.

> > So, it's not introducing 2 points of failure, it's a manner of
> > providing multiple, redundant paths.
>
> On EastNet, we use Flex and when applicable prefer 3-way, no hts (hidden
> transmitter syndrome) RF links which with Flex, no OSPF etc. is needed.
> Flex handles it all on the RF side. I've witnessed IP sockets on path A
> fail and re-establish on path B over flex without interruption of the
> Layer 7 app in use.
>
>
Some sort of routing is required to determine where to route IP packets.
It's not magic that happens.  And, Flex32, last I checked, has no package
available for OpenWRT or Cisco routers.

> > Again, not pertinent to the discussion here, really.
>
> Absolutely it is. The OpenVPN system directly interfacing amprgate then
> becomes the single point of failure for anything behind it. Again, I
> expected such a response.
>
>
Sure.  OpenVPN is the single point of failure then, just like ipip encaps
are the single point of failure today.  Not seeing what the difference is?

> > They use a form of it, yet.  However, the method used by ARDC isn't
> > available in COTS hardware, therefore, makes the network more
> > difficult to deploy, and scale.
>
> I see "not invented here" to equal "isn't available in COTS hardware" in
> principle... and you're also quite incorrect in your above statement.
> Features simply may be hidden in the eye-candy GUIs provided such as
> ipencap which is in more COTS devices than you may realize.
>

I'm not talking about ipencap.  I'm referring more to the routing protocol:
 ampr-ripd.

>
> >   I fail to see how a custom RIP daemon and a niche clear-channel
> > tunneling protocol is specifically crafted for amateur usage.  The
> > AX25 stack, yes, but that's not what we're discussing here.  We're
> > discussing IPv4 routing over RF links.
>
> Now we're talking RF. Which are we discussing? If we're discussing IPv4
> under ax.25 for the purposes of RF, there's other methods available
> specific for RF usage... FlexNet being one of them. After all what's key
> on RF is the ax.25 layer not the IP header which is under the ax.25
> layer. Ripv2 is as useless on RF as would be to send AT&T's OSPF table
> via RF.
>
>
Well, for this discussion, we're talking about the wire-line links needed
to bridge island networks, not available via RF.  Regardless, many routing
protocols work just fine for wire-line or wireless, such as OSLR.

Praytell:  How does one access an IPv4 address, via RF, without a routing
table entry for it?  Sure, I can call KC2UGV-8 via KTOWN, and NetROM will
make it happen.  But, without a routing table and route, I cannot ping
44.x.x.x.

So, routing protocols ARE required for IPv4 routing.  RF or wireline.

> > There is no "reinventing the wheel" here:  What I'm suggesting is the
> > exact opposite:  Stop reinventing the wheel, and use the systems in
> > place in the wider IPv4 networking world.
> >
> For which medium? amprgate hasn't done a thing in 40 years of it's
> existence except upgrade hardware and send more botnet data to UCSD for
> examination than it did before (yes amprgate traps botnet and viri data
> for examination which it sends to antiviri companies so ipencap helps in
> this regard).. so there has NOT been any reinventing the wheel. If you
> wish to link to amprgate and the rest of the global internet they
> provide a mesh ipencap system. You do not have to talk directly to
> amprgate if you wish not to, that's the end user's option.
>
> > We could, and should, learn some lessons from the wider schools here.
> > What we're discussing is a mesh network, on a wide scale.  Much like
> > Freifunk network (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freifunk).  They did
> > not write their own custom routing protocol.  They used an
> > off-the-shelf, modern link state routing protocol.  Nodes come and go
> > at will, and the network autodiscovers new routes.
>
> This mesh network is 802.11 in nature. You can also look at what's going
> on in Florida. There's HamWan and HamLan as well. Nothing new, higher
> speeds and ax.25 is NOT even required, however, there are devices which
> can handle ipencap on these sort of ham networks quite easily. YO2LOJ
> who makes one of the ripv2 daemons also writes a tool for making and
> maintaining ipencap within ubiquity gear.
>
> So... which are we discussing now?
> wire?
> ax.25 RF?
> 802.11ham RF?
>
>
We are talking about a unified IPv4 network, which is what this mailing
list is for:  The NYS operators of an IPv4 address space.  The physical
layer isn't really at issue here, aside from how we link island together
until we have RF links.

> --
> I find it funny routing engineers are how they are. If part of what they
> do wasn't for my work, they wouldn't have work.
>
> 73 de Brian - N1URO
> email: (see above)
> Web: http://www.n1uro.net/
> Ampr1: http://n1uro.ampr.org/
> Ampr2: http://nos.n1uro.ampr.org
> Linux Amateur Radio Services
> axMail-Fax & URONode
> http://uronode.sourceforge.net
> http://axmail.sourceforge.net
> AmprNet coordinator for:
> Connecticut, Delaware, Maine,
> Maryland, Massachusetts,
> New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
> Rhode Island, and Vermont.
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://n2nov.net/pipermail/hamgateny_n2nov.net/attachments/20170130/54963f63/attachment.htm>