Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Resolve conflict with Meshtastic network #635

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

marek22k
Copy link

Hello, as far as I can see, Freifunk Cuxhaven is no longer active in the IC-VPN.

Meshtastic, also a mesh project, but with other goals, uses the range 10.115.0.0/16, in which the ICVPN range of Freifunk Cuxhaven is also located, when it tunnels IP. If Cuxhaven no longer needs the range, I would appreciate it if it could be released again so that no conflicts with the Meshtastic network can occur.

@Borsal Since you seem to be the maintainer of Cuxhaven, could you take a look at my request and reject or confirm it?

@wusel42
Copy link
Contributor

wusel42 commented Apr 16, 2024

While I agree – I don't see 10.115.0.0/19 on ICVPN currently and there's no entry for cuxhaven in icvpn/hosts/ –, in which way is there a conflict? I do not see Meshtastic join ICVPN, therefore I fail to see the issue?

@marek22k
Copy link
Author

I found the PR again after a long time and saw that I hadn't replied to it yet: The conflict exists when a node is connected to both Meshtastic and the IC VPN. This can happen, for example, with a home computer that acts as a Lab, dn42 router and Meshtastic router.
The Meshtastic network itself will probably not be announced, as it is intended to exist locally (within a physical mesh network).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants