[HN Gopher] Why and How I Got My Own ASN
___________________________________________________________________
Why and How I Got My Own ASN
Author : zdw
Score : 215 points
Date : 2022-02-02 15:15 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (chown.me)
(TXT) w3m dump (chown.me)
| rootsudo wrote:
| I like how he mentioned the fixes he did to BSD and even though
| they were cosmetic and man pages fix.
|
| I always spot those small things, but I always feel silly
| submitting them on github since sometimes they feel so minor.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| I think all of the BSDs appreciate thoughtful patches to
| improve the documentation. Most of the BSD devs are so deeply
| familiar with the OS that they do not have the perspective of
| an inexperienced user trying to read the docs and figure things
| out.
| alberth wrote:
| Does anyone have a simple to read & concise resource to educate
| myself on this topic.
|
| I understand what an ASN is at a super high level, but have to
| admit that the vast majority of the acromyns in this article were
| new to me.
|
| Any good resources to read on this subject?
| throw0101a wrote:
| > _Any good resources to read on this subject?_
|
| Everything you wanted to know about BGP from the Network
| Startup Resource Center (NSRC):
|
| * https://learn.nsrc.org/bgp
| stingraycharles wrote:
| I don't have any resources, but as a hobby homelab / networking
| guy with too much Mikrotik hardware at home, this is what I
| learned:
|
| * There are a bunch of organizations responsible for
| distributing all IP ranges (i.e. ARIN and RIPE);
|
| * Each of these ranges they assign, get a unique ASN;
|
| * Once I have such an ASN, I can go to an ISP and say, "please
| broadcast this for me and route it to my network"
|
| * ISP will verify whether you speak the truth (hopefully);
|
| * They will add an entry in their route tables for your range,
| so that any traffic they receive is correctly routed to your
| port:
|
| * They will start broadcasting your routes, using protocols
| such as RIP;
|
| * They will then start broadcasting your IP ranges with their
| uplinks they peer with using BGP;
|
| * The internet has now learned how to reach your servers behind
| your IP ranges.
|
| This is a bit simplified, but in general is how I understand
| things work.
|
| Would love it if someone with more knowledge on the matter can
| elaborate a bit on the BGP broadcasting part, and how ISPs
| protect against bad actors / scammers / whatever. I know there
| are recent improvements in BGP security, but it all still seems
| very insecure to me, and humans are still a critical factor
| here?
|
| Additionally, I understand that BGP is necessary because
| typical route table entries being broadcasted using RIP etc are
| too narrow, too smal, and you want to be able to aggregate a
| whole bunch of routes into large blocks, which is what BGP is
| for? Did I get that right?
| alberth wrote:
| This is a huge help as a quick start on this subject. Thanks
| a lot.
|
| Question: so if I want to host a web application at hosting
| provider X, and I have my own ASN and want to use my own IP
| addresses - I assume then that the hosting provider needs to
| "support BGP"? Is that accurate?
| capableweb wrote:
| > I assume then that the hosting provider needs to "support
| BGP"? Is that accurate?
|
| Indeed, one way or another, they need to support BGP which
| if they are using their own ASN and data center, they most
| likely already do but it's not 100% they allow their
| customers to use their own. Sometimes they advertise that
| they support BGP for their customers (like Vultr:
| https://www.vultr.com/docs/configuring-bgp-on-vultr/),
| sometimes they can provide the service to you if you ask
| nicely and sometimes they don't want anything to do with
| customer BGP.
| glecedric wrote:
| The Ipv6 pool is quite vast. Yet I am a little surprised that an
| individual can receive a /48 without much trouble: that a lot of
| IPs.
| normaler wrote:
| I was surprised about that too. I got 1 static ipv4 Form my ISP
| and a /48 for IPv6. Not sure what to do with that, but still
| cool.
| zahllos wrote:
| Another point to consider is the IPv6 global routing table for
| internet routers. Suppose you decided to give end users /120s
| instead and those /120s were all routable on the internet. That
| means there are 120 bits of addressing just to find the
| network. There are 2^120 such networks in theory. If you could
| actually enumerate this, you'd be well on your way to
| bruteforcing AES128. In other words, this is just infeasible.
|
| By handing out /48s the routing table stays manageable. This is
| the smallest address block you can announce via BGP for this
| reason.
|
| Given the utter vastness of IPv6 we are also able to do things
| like carve out an entire /7, fc00::/7, for unique local
| addresses, and still tell people they shouldn't actually need
| these addresses at all.
|
| As to the actual process of getting a PI block, I think it is
| likely to involve some questions. A similar objection exists to
| handing out smaller than /48s: more people having their own
| block implies more routing entries. Much better if an existing
| provider carves you a /48 out of their allocation and routes
| you traffic. This is probably balanced against the fact that by
| requiring you to deal with an existing LIR and set up BGP (and
| your LIR won't want you to muck that up) the number of people
| who will actually do this just for fun is limited.
| kloch wrote:
| The IETF IPv6 allocation scheme was crazy from the start. The
| standard subnet size for autoconfiguration purposes is /64 = 18
| Billion Trillion addresses. Of course reality is that
| autoconfiguration is only marginally useful and lots of things
| like servers and infrastructure links are statically assigned
| or assigned through dhcpv6. Most of the time I assign /112's to
| server subnets to limit the risk of IPv6 neighbor discovery
| attacks.
|
| The standard /48 assignment size from ISP's to end-users was
| targeted mainly at stingy residential ISP's that were only
| assigning one IP per customer. They wanted any customer to have
| as many publicly routable subnets as they would ever need or
| want, but 65k is a _lot_ of subnets. This was later updated to
| a default of /56 (256 subnets) but you could still get at /48
| just for asking.
|
| It got even weirder on RIR to ISP portable allocations. One of
| the original schemes would have RIR's allocating a "TLA" /16
| (!) to only a few mega ISP's. Most ISP's/hosts would have to
| get their "NLA" address blocks from and be subservient to the
| 800 pound gorillas in the industry. https://www.rfc-
| editor.org/rfc/rfc2450.txt, https://www.rfc-
| editor.org/rfc/rfc2374
|
| This was loosened somewhat in 2000 with RFC2928 which
| designated a "Sub-TLA" /29 as the initial ISP size. This would
| open it up to many more potential registrants, at least in
| theory. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2928.html
|
| The TLA/Sub-TLA/NLA system was abandoned in 2003 with RFC3587
| after panic set in that nobody was deploying IPv6.
| https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3587.txt. ARIN had only made
| 30 Sub-TLA assignments by the end of 2002.
|
| While RFC3587 wisely punted allocation policy to the RIR
| communities, the RIR's still had very restrictive policies
| inherited from RFC2450. Only around 2004 did they loosen to the
| point that ordinary networks could start requesting addresses.
| Google for example got their first IPv6 allocation in 2005. The
| problem is by then few networks were interested or just assumed
| they wouldn't qualify. When I got my first /32 in late 2004
| there were less than 1000 routes in the global IPv6 table!
| Today there are ~135,000.
|
| These more permissive rules only applied to ISP's/Hosts. End
| user orgs of _any_ size were not allowed to start requesting
| portable /48's directly from RIR's until 2006 after much
| debate in RIR communities and vocal objections from IETF
| members and certain large ISP's.
|
| Today router silicon and RIR policies have converged to a
| reasonably functional state. Too bad it took 20 years to get
| here or IPv6 might actually be on it's way to replacing IPV4.
| Instead that is still about 20 years away.
| cbg0 wrote:
| This is based on the recommendations in
| https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3177
|
| A relevant snippet:
|
| > This means that we feel comfortable about the prospect of
| allocating 178 billions /48 prefixes under that scheme before
| problems start to appear. To understand how big that number is,
| one has to compare 178 billion to 10 billion, which is the
| projected population on earth in year 2050
| cassianoleal wrote:
| ~So that's a maximum average 17.8 IPs per person? Seems
| awfully low, considering people these days have multiple
| devices connected to the Internet at any given time: phone,
| watch, tablet, laptop(s), perhaps desktop(s), security
| cameras, IP phones, refrigerators, washing machines, TVs,
| video game consoles, I could go on...~
|
| Edit: oh, wow I misread that completely. It's 17.8 /48 ranges
| per person on average. Yep, that should be enough for quite a
| while.
| klysm wrote:
| Every phone gets a /48!
| chippiewill wrote:
| IIRC /64s are ideally meant to address to individual subnets
| (the bottom 64 bits aren't intended for routing) so it's only
| really 64k addresses in the conventional sense.
|
| /48 is actually a relatively standard allocation even for home
| connections, although /56 is more common.
| hotpotamus wrote:
| This was key to me understanding IPv6 - you don't really do
| variable length subnets. You just get a /48 and break that up
| into /64's. Because the space is so vast, you can do
| inefficient things with no chance of running into allocation
| issues like v4 and you don't have to mentally try and subnet
| a 128 bit address which maybe some can handle but hurts my
| head.
| jagger27 wrote:
| I think what Rogers in Canada does is reasonable. They issue
| a /64 by default and a /56 if you set an assignment hint.
| kloch wrote:
| The intent of the standard /48 end user size was to prevent
| residential ISP's from being stingy and only assigning one
| IP. They wanted homes to have as many publicly routable
| subnets as the would ever need or want.
|
| This was later revised to "/56 by default, /48 if you ask
| with no justification needed"
| throw0101a wrote:
| > _The Ipv6 pool is quite vast. Yet I am a little surprised
| that an individual can receive a /48 without much trouble: that
| a lot of IPs._
|
| A /48 is considered one "site" in current thinking. Since IPv6
| subnets are /64, you have 16 bits between the /48 and the /64.
| This is the equivalent of using 10/8 for your network and using
| /24 IPv4 subnets: in both cases you can have upto 2^16 subnets.
|
| The main difference being that a /24 can have ~250 hosts, but a
| /64 IPv6 subnet can hold the equivalent of four billion
| Internets (2^32 * 2^32).
|
| But one of the selling points of IPv6 is reducing/eliminating
| the mental math about worrying about if you have "enough"
| addresses (and then carving things into /26, /30, etc).
| jleahy wrote:
| I have a /29, there's a lot of IPv6.
| holdenk wrote:
| If anyone is in the bay area and wants to run physical hardware
| and peer with folks, FCIX down in the HE facility in Fremont is
| very welcoming to small networks and doesn't have port fees
| (although you do need to be in the HE facility).
| Karrot_Kream wrote:
| Oh wow that's fantastic! Are you referring to https://fcix.net/
| ? Thanks so much for the tip. Do you know how much it costs to
| grab a dedicated box in the HE Fremont facility?
| holdenk wrote:
| So they don't do dedicated boxes (sadly), they rent by the
| rack (including 1gb of transit + 15A power).
| https://he.net/colocation.html has the info. If you just want
| a dedicated box that isn't drawing a lot of power I've
| probably got some room in my rack and we can chat (and I
| imagine some of the other BGP for fun group folks are in
| similar positions).
| EvanAnderson wrote:
| The "On the Metal" podcast episode[0] about the FCIX exchange
| was a really enjoyable listen. I had no idea that things like
| that could still just "pop up". I assume those days were long-
| passed.
|
| [0] https://oxide.computer/podcasts/kenneth-finnegan
| soggybutter wrote:
| Just finished that episode yesterday. The internet is spooky
| sometimes lol
| danrl wrote:
| I went through the same journey some years ago. Now sharing my
| ASN 57821 with friends. We use OpenBSD for edge routing validate
| RPKI as well. My motivation was that I couldn't get IPv6
| otherwise. So I ended up with an ASN, v4 and v6 address space
| from RIPE. Not the worst deal of my life and the source of tons
| of practical learning regarding networking.
| mlyle wrote:
| The thing that really surprises me here is that he found cheap
| hosts willing to run a BGP session with him. Who offers this in
| North America?
|
| He mentions one of his VMs is in Toronto, but not with whom...
|
| edit: Looks like https://xenyth.net/products/vps-hosting/ Xenyth
| Cloud. Curious if there's any VM hosts in e.g. California that
| would do this.
| icehawk wrote:
| I also know of:
|
| https://freerangecloud.com/
| Vigdis wrote:
| Hey, OP here. It's not that unusual actually. Check
| bgp.services (I mentioned it in https://chown.me/blog/getting-
| my-own-asn#findinghosters).
|
| A few years ago someone gave a talk "anycast on a shoestring":
| https://ripe69.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/36-...
|
| The author explained how they found hosting services.
| rmkrmk wrote:
| I've done this as well recently, and the list at bgp.services
| helped a lot. Vultr is a good example, they have locations
| across the globe.
| ssabetan wrote:
| +1 for Vultr. I currently use them to announce a /24.
| therein wrote:
| I wanted to like Vultr. I gave them a fair chance but then
| they changed the IP on my VPS without telling me. It
| changed from a Swedish IP to an American IP overnight and
| left me confused in every way.
|
| Everything broke and support wasn't willing to explain what
| happened. It felt like they decided my account was
| suspicious and they routed all my traffic through some
| firewalled/monitored egress to inspect my traffic. I
| couldn't even SSH in, I had to go the the dashboard and
| grab the IP they had reassigned to my host.
| capableweb wrote:
| Really? That sounds extremely shitty. As a customer of
| Vultr, it makes me a bit scared, but during the 5~ or
| something years I've used them, that never happened to
| me.
|
| You'd be doing everyone a service by continuing to dig
| out a reason for why that happened, and if they don't
| provide it, lambast them over social media or something
| so they do provide some sort of justification.
| therein wrote:
| It happened probably 6-7 months ago and worse yet,
| services I had downstream actually were sensitive to the
| geolocation of the caller. Fortunately I caught it
| quickly enough when someone I was working with tried to
| SSH into the host and couldn't.
|
| Surely the account was being paid via cryptocurrency
| however it was already verified through the linking of an
| actual traditional credit card like they required.
| rmorey wrote:
| I believe Vultr does: https://www.vultr.com/docs/configuring-
| bgp-on-vultr/
| jonathantf2 wrote:
| Frantech/BuyVM offer this - https://frante.ch
|
| They have Vegas, Miami, NY and Luxembourg and do BGP, Anycast,
| DDoS protection etc.
| teddyh wrote:
| > _I had to escape all the : in my shell_
|
| Why? The colon character is not a special character in shell
| commands.
| craftkiller wrote:
| The author uses OpenBSD which uses ksh as their default shell.
| I just ran ksh on Arch Linux and even though `touch foo:bar`
| worked, when I did tab-completion the shell escaped the colon
| anyway, making my command `touch foo\:bar`. I assume its
| related to this, but I've never used ksh before so I can't
| explain the difference in the tab-completion behavior.
| Arnavion wrote:
| bash is the same - `:` isn't special but tab-completion
| escapes it.
|
| Tab-completion is probably being conservative about escaping
| it in case you're using it as a path separator, like when
| setting a `$PATH`-like var.
| Vigdis wrote:
| (OP here) I'm not sure actually
|
| I'm running bash I have to escape it otherwise the shell
| doesn't autocomplete.
|
| But ls/vim seems to be fine with the path without escaping so I
| guess I'm wrong.
|
| Anyway, another problem is: ~/git/git.chown.me/ipam (master
| %=)$ vim ipv6/2a0e\:f43\:\:-48/2a0e\:f43\:<tab><tab> I get:
| 2a0e:f43:0:100:-56/ 2a0e:f43:0:fd00::-56/ 2a0e:f43:0:fe00::-56/
| 2a0e:f43:0:ff00::-56/ 2a0e:f43::-56/
|
| it's a mess to find the difference between the possibility haha
| johnklos wrote:
| It's lovely to read about people doing things that're out of the
| ordinary to learn & explore because it's what they want to do.
|
| We have too many people who don't like stuff like this, who say
| it's "too hard", and that people shouldn't do hard things (just
| see any thread on the Internet about people running their own
| email servers). It's wonderful to see someone sharing something
| non-trivial in a way that makes it ever so slightly more
| attainable to the rest of us.
| eatonphil wrote:
| Setting up an email server once sounds awesome. Coding an email
| server system from scratch also sounds awesome. But running an
| email server indefinitely doesn't sound super fun.
| bsedlm wrote:
| doing any activity indefinitely is not fun, is a day job
| johnklos wrote:
| I've been running email servers since the '90s, and there's
| surprisingly little work that needs to be done once it's up
| and running.
| excitom wrote:
| I ran email servers for my personal domains in the 90s and
| early 2000s. What eventually caused me to move everything
| to gmail was the massive pain of dealing with spam and
| trying to keep up with the latest spam filtering, which is
| essential.
| znpy wrote:
| I've been running my own mailserver for the last ten
| years and I must say that nowadays I'm not even running
| an antispam filter anymore because I basically don't get
| spam.
|
| What I do instead (instead of running an antispam server)
| is checking all stuff that a proper mail admin would do,
| that is:
|
| - greylisting (postgrey)
|
| - reject hosts not listed in spf records for the sender
| (spf-policyd)
|
| - verifying dkim signatures, if present (opendkim)
|
| Also f#@k spamhaus and those people, they will mark you
| as a spam host on pure prejudice.
| georgyo wrote:
| Rspamd has made that trivial for a number of years. It's
| an amazing tool.
| megous wrote:
| You don't need to keep up with anything if you use
| bogofilter, or similar statistics based methods, to
| classify it. You can do server side filtering based on
| other non-content things like DNS lookups, or IP
| blacklists, but that's just adding needless failure modes
| on the receive side. I don't do any non-content
| filtering, to keep things simple for the senders and
| latency down. Statistical methods are just that effective
| on a personal mail server level.
| eatonphil wrote:
| Sure, you and many people. I'm saying there's an in-between
| level of enthusiasm where you do want to learn new things
| and experiment but without getting yourself into any long-
| term commitments.
|
| I'm sure you'd agree that it's also easier to scale your
| experiments/interest if you only do small experiments
| rather than go all the way in every dimension.
| icedchai wrote:
| Same here. I started running my own mail servers back in
| 1994. Through the years, I've run smail, sendmail, qmail.
| My current stack is postfix, dovecot, rspamd running on
| FreeBSD.
| Vigdis wrote:
| Thank you for your kind words!
| therein wrote:
| Aside from a nice article, what a great domain.
| yuuta wrote:
| I got my first ASN in April, 2021 from a LIR. It was an amazing
| experience. If you live in the west part of North America like
| me, you can get a IX VPS at FreeRangeCloud (disclaimer: I'm not
| affiliated with them). You can connect to Unmetered Exchange,
| EVIX and OPTiX just using one machine. You can also contact HE to
| get a free transit at Unmetered Exchange.
|
| For software, I'm using Bird, because I couldn't get OpenBGPd
| insert routes into my FIB. (I'm using OpenBSD, not the portable
| one)
| [deleted]
| yuuta wrote:
| I also use WireGuard to connect my home router to a VPS to get my
| home connected to my network. However, VPNs highly depend on the
| availability of your residential ISP, the speed and stability are
| not desirable, especially when I run some servers at home. Having
| a dedicated line with BGP would be good, but there's no such a
| thing I guess for residential users.
| butlerm wrote:
| BGP is only necessary to advertise large blocks of provider
| independent address space. It would still go through your
| provider's routers however, with appropriate BGP filtering,
| unless you managed to use some kind of tunneling system. Unless
| you had a large block of provider independent space and were
| physically multi-homed to multiple providers, using BGP is more
| likely to cause problems than help. If you do not connect to
| multiple ISPs there is not really any reason to use BGP at all.
| DanAtC wrote:
| They hit on a point I rarely see mentioned: ARIN makes acquiring
| assets as an individual prohibitively difficult and expensive.
| Especially for IPv6 where European LIRs hand them out like candy
| e.g. https://clients.stratagem.host/cart.php?gid=14
| techsupporter wrote:
| Having dealt with ARIN, RIPE, and APNIC quite a lot over the
| years, this is bang on. APNIC is fairly ambivalent. ARIN
| expects everyone to be a formally organized entity. Only RIPE
| seems to truly get that an individual person could be doing
| something on their own behalf, probably because forming a
| proper limited company was such a huge paperwork endeavor in
| most of RIPE's service area.
|
| ARIN really needs the concept of sponsoring LIRs, because right
| now everyone has to deal directly with ARIN and that means ARIN
| has to fit their policies to try to fit everyone. While it's
| technically possible to get IPv6 PI space from ARIN as an
| individual person end user, and it's gotten easier than in the
| past, it still looks really daunting to the hobbyist or small
| network operator.
|
| As for LIRs handing them out like candy, I joined RIPE as an
| LIR and RIPE will allocate an IPv6 /29 to an LIR for the low
| cost of zero Euro (well, except for the membership, which is a
| bit spendy) and that's 524,288 /48s so no reason for me to not
| slap up a web page and see if I can earn back a few of the EUR
| I will be paying to RIPE. I'm glad people do it for the
| pittance we see here.
| magila wrote:
| Frankly it needs to be at least a little bit of a pain to get
| PI space. As the post briefly mentions, every prefix
| announced consumes memory in every router on the internet. If
| everyone had their own PI space it would literally break the
| internet.
| icedchai wrote:
| I have a legacy /24 that predates ARIN. I know several
| other local "early internet" users that also have their own
| netblocks. Back then, all you had to do was fire off an
| email. The company name didn't even have to be real.
| salawat wrote:
| >If everyone had their own PI space it would literally
| break the internet.
|
| That's an odd way of saying "spurring innovation in the
| realm of internet routing implementations!
|
| Damn middleboxers. Always trying to keep the little guy off
| the net!
| boris wrote:
| I am curious, what happens if I get a /48 from you and some
| time later you decide you don't wish to be a LIR anymore. Do
| I get to keep my /48 somehow (i.e., does RIPE guarantee
| this)?
| tialaramex wrote:
| Your /48 isn't portable, so, no, too bad. If you've got a
| contract which extends beyond the period where they're an
| LIR, maybe you have a breach and would seek compensation,
| but RIPE doesn't care. See also, "What do you mean the guy
| I leased this apartment from has sold it?".
|
| Most IPv4 space also isn't portable. Even if you have a /24
| (enough IPv4 space that it _could_ be portable) it usually
| isn 't, if you actually need portable space you need to
| make sure that's what you're actually getting, it will
| probably cost more.
|
| If it's portable then you can just take it with you to
| another provider.
| zajio1am wrote:
| Depends on whether the /48 is PI (provider-independent) or
| PA (provider-aggregable). In the case above (LIR gets /29
| and splits it to /48s) it is PA, so the /48 is just a part
| of the provider's address range, you cannot keep it if the
| provider ceased to be LIR (or if you wanted to change
| providers).
|
| But you can instead request /48 PI range in 'sponsoring
| LIR' mode, which would be independent allocation from RIPE
| (and subject to small yearly fee), just processed by the
| LIR. Then you could keep it if you change LIRs.
| traceroute66 wrote:
| > RIPE will allocate an IPv6 /29 to an LIR
|
| Last time I checked it was a /32.
|
| More than that requires justification (and potential Euro
| payments depending on context/cirumstances).
|
| Edit to add: Grrr... I see there was a policy change after
| $myco received its IPv6 allocation [1]. Typical. ;-(
|
| [1]
| https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2012-10
| buttocks wrote:
| This was not my experience with ARIN at all. I requested
| resources as an individual (sole proprietor) and they were
| issued to me under my own name. The only requirement is that
| you have a justified use and $250 per year, which is the cost
| for 3X-Small allocation (/40 or less of IPv6, /24 of IPv4). As
| of this year it is also $50 to have an "org" created. This is
| not prohibitively difficult, though it might be prohibitively
| expensive for some.
| kajiryoji wrote:
| This seems like a very good deal! Has anyone bought this
| before?
| stratagem_ben wrote:
| Kind of biased but I'd like to think it's a good deal too,
| cheers. I priced it as such as to hopefully entice more
| people to engage with IPv6 and try to bring down the barriers
| to learning. If you've any specific queries feel free to fire
| those over.
| megous wrote:
| The only unholy thing I have to do by splitting /64 from my VPS
| into multiple subnets at home is to use DHCPv6 in my home net
| instead of SLAAC and use NDP proxy on the VPS.
|
| Probably cheaper and less bothersome than acquiring an ASN and
| setting up BGP. :)
| Wheaties466 wrote:
| The amount of overhead it takes to encrypt a full tunnel on an
| endpoint device is absolutely not worth it compared to GRE.
| stingraycharles wrote:
| Yeah, network hardware is already a bottleneck most of the
| time, it's much more effective to keep encryption out of the
| critical path there.
|
| Besides, I wonder what the threat model is; you will still want
| end-to-end encryption on top of it, so why bother with
| encrypting the traffic below as well?
| southerntofu wrote:
| Glad to see mention of self-organized non-profit ISPs in France
| on HN homepage! I'm sure more people around here would be
| interested to learn how it works and maybe start their own, if
| you have english-speaking resources at hand :)
|
| Congratulations on your network setup! It's impressive for such a
| low budget
| hungryforcodes wrote:
| What?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-02-02 23:01 UTC)