Resolve conflict with Meshtastic network #635
Open
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
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? |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Hello, as far as I can see, Freifunk Cuxhaven is no longer active in the IC-VPN.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?