Linux-Hams archive - April 1998: Re: update : ax25ipd question

Re: update : ax25ipd question

Richard Adams (zefzk@va.gov)
Tue, 7 Apr 1998 11:29:13 +0000 (GMT)


According to kd4zkw: While burning my CPU.
>
> Yeah, I'm totally whacked. Anyays, what I wanted to do was to hook up
> ax25ipd to port another gateway on a different freqeuncy into my node
> using ax25ipd. I set up the node for his address which is 205.152.185.200
> and we went for it, with no luck. What I think might have happened is
> that I had him route to nme thru 44.98.2.22, instead of my commercial
> address which is 209.4.65.28. Incidentally, his amprnet ip is 44.98.2.5,
> and if you telnet to that, you will get his gateway. He has his commercial
> IP named as w4bkx.ampr.org, so that's where the confusion is. But his
> stuff works, and mine doesn't, so I'm not going to critique him.

This maybe all fine and dandy but, consider the fact that in many countries
including Holland the simple fact that a IP# OTHER than 44.xx.xx.xx over a
RF link could be considered to be an infringment of our licence rules and
regulations.

Another aspect is, when "any" packet addressed to "anything" other than
44.xx.xx.xx addresses goes into the bit bucket on a local radio lan so
what happens when i or someone else on my system does:

telnet w4bkx
$ telnet w4bkx
Trying 205.152.185.200...
telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Network is unreachable

The local router sends an ICMP type Unreachable code Network, so it cant
work that way.

If this was seen by someone who "objects" to gateways and wormholes he would
now have what would seem like evidence of "pirate traffic" being transmitted
from my stn, which could cost me whole lot of trouble.

Please inform w4bkx that what he has done has MANY more conciquenceies than
he imagened.
One would have thought that an "area IP coordinator" would have thought this
over before doing such a thing.

Sorry to rant on about this, which may seem trivial to some, however we HAVE
to think about this sort of pratice here in Europe, simply because there are
so many "objectors" to packet gateways on the internet and this practice just
gives them another point to argue on.

>

-- 
Regards Richard.
isxnbfow.lgntqvpf@ipcc.com