John The whole use of the 10.X.X.X addresses seems like a real mess, but in fact, it could be put to very good use.
The advantage is that every callsign has a unique address in the system, down to a device level. A very similar concept exist in the cellular networks - each device has it's own identity and that identity moves between cellular zones and networks. Whilst callsigns are useful, there is no good routing protocol for callsigns - that is what G2 attempts and fails to do today. Now, host addresses actually are very useful things, and there is no reason why these couldn't be used to provide a much more scalable G2 architecture that retained it's compatibility with the existing G2 network. Advertising the movement of a /32 address across a small IP network such as the G2 network using an IETF standard routing protocol would be very quick. I'm not going to go into great detail on my thoughts - there are correct forums for doing that, and that isn't here. However, for those that are Cisco IOS literate think about this: - Three routers, connected via your favourite IGRP (mine is OSPF). - DNS with a lookup to G4ULF 10.1.1.1 - OSPF on both routers with "redistribute connected" configured - Create a loopback on R1 for 10.1.1.1/32. From R3 ping "g4ulf" - Delete the loopback on R1 and create on R2 for 10.1.1.1/32. From R3 ping "g4ulf" Now, pretend the routers are G2 gateways and the loopback is created from the "Last Heard" table.... David - G4ULF --- In [email protected], John Hays <j...@...> wrote: > > > On Jul 24, 2009, at 12:33 PM, dlake02 wrote: > > > Scott > > > > In the initial packet, the IP address is set to a 10.X.X.X/28 > > address. You won't see that in the database, because it is only sent > > until the Zone RP is authorized. > > > > Once authorized, the IP address used is the one that the Trust > > Server picks up from source IP of the poll. > > > > Also, once registered, each module registers with a 10.X.X.X/28 > > address so that DD traffic can reach it. > > > > David > > > > > > . > > > > > > > David, > > Its great that you are willing to freely share your knowledge of how > G2 works - I can't wait until your beta is over and you release code > for us to try and source to study. (My Friendcoms arrived today for my > desktop test platform.) I'm still wondering if you have also found a > way to have your gateway code talk to the RP2C or is it only for home > brew GMSK modem/node adapter controlled repeaters? > > Architecturally, I find the whole 10.x.x.x dependency a little off- > putting. Even for DD, the routing should be by callsign (look at the > DD packet format, it has nothing to do with TCP/IP, its about > encapsulating Ethernet packets inside of D-STAR packets). Maybe next > generation trust/gateway architecture can eliminate this dependency? > > I think the gateway architecture should be Internet encapsulates D- > STAR packets treating both DD and DV the same. All the trust would > need is to map which callsigns need routed to which gateway and let > the gateway handle it from there. > > > John Hays > Amateur Radio: K7VE > j...@... >
