The website names 3 people that are Boardmembers of ARDC. They are also the only 3 officers. According to the Bylaws these 3 control everything. No one else has any say in the control of the ARDC. There are no members. Just them. They can allow 2 more people on the Board, however, since they could remove the new Board members anytime they didn't like a vote or discussion, it's all illusory anyway. Until the Bylaws are modified to allow the voice of the users to be heard(via a right to vote) ARDC is just a closed 3 person entity. I too would like to see Bart on the Board. I lean towards his view of things. Id rather have 4 or 5 dictators than 3(sorry I think I meant 'Directors').
The current Bylaws give 100% of the control of the ARDC to the 3 Directors. I don't know the history behind it. It is a good way to get things done in a timely manner, but to have the wishes of the users heard----changes would be needed. The current Bylaws were written to concentrate power.
Also, Bart, as a Board Member if you wanted to vote at a Regular Board Meeting they would have to make a Bylaw change so you could attend and vote via electronic communications. Right now to have your vote counted at a Regular Board Meeting you have to actually be there or proxy it; but not for Annual or Special Meetings.
An income and expense statement, and a list of transactions would help with transparency. An Asset Statement only shows so much. My guess is that the existing Board has been carrying the group financially. The loan on the books suggests that. I thank them for doing so. Without clear information it's hard to know the needs of the organization. Publishing the Board minutes and a Budget might open our eyes to the workings of the group and make more people inclined to donate. We are a large diverse group. There are many views and ideas amongst us. I'm sure there are some people with deep pockets amongst us too, if needed.
Hopefully, with more openness, more people will feel inclined to help financially and with their ideas.
I thank the existing Board members for your dedicated service. You have done a lot.
I hope I haven't offended you. It's just that I have created many nonprofits in my legal career;but not once have I made one with such a tight concentration of power. Maybe that's needed with an asset as valuable as the 44 Net, I don't know. It just seems odd in Amateur Radio.
Anyway, I encourage you to put Bart and another interested person on the Board ASAP. Sharing the load should make things easier. And you can do it without even having to have an election;just appoint him/them.
And then just before or at the next Annual Meeting change the Bylaws to allow users to have a vote in matters via proxy, electronic, or other methods. Heck, a new set of Bylaws would be good too.
73
Ken
K7ICY
ps I am new to the 44 Net. I don't know your past history. And you might have full minutes and financials posted somewhere. It's just real late and I'm too lazy to search them out. Sorry if I'm all wet. Feel free to Flame. All attorneys have thick skin and the Heat might help get me ready for the Hereafter.
Sent from Samsung tablet
Time and again there appear suggestions for using that LOTW certificate for other things then LOTW.
I don't know if you are aware, but not everyone is an ARRL member or uses LOTW.
So, as long as things like APRS have absolutely nothing to do with ARRL, please keep them apart.
Marius, YO2LOJ
I agree with N6MEF. When I first requested an allocation and how to stand up a 44GW, I was simply told I had the /24. I was stuck building a GW with only the mailing list, knowledge of networking and the Linux manual as my guide.
I had to learn about the AMPR DNS zone, *NOS, how the network works, etc. Brian was a huge help. And he told me to document how I got my 44GW working...alot of that has been incorporated into the rip44d page and setting up a Linux machine in the Wiki, not just directly by me, but through others and from this email thread, etc.
We all have been doing a good job recently by way of creating documentation by posting to to the Wiki; but it would be easier if those who have the particular experience (e.g. setting up a TNOS/JNOS node or compiling the new C++ based rip44) take time to record their steps. Perhaps even write a history of 44net...I keep a little copy/paste history and info at http://kb3vwg-010.ampr.org but I'm definitely not the AMPR historian, by experience.
I'm willing to take time to draft some things (such as the AMPR DNS and start a page listing all services I'm aware of on AMPRNet, since I maintain some services such as a non-authorative DNS slave at 44.60.44.3)...but it would be better if those with direct knowledge (e.g. the DNS admin or an owner of one of the authorative slaves) draft it (i.e. I have no clue who to talk to about considering making my server authorative).
-KB3VWG
On 4/17/14, 5:20 PM, Neil Johnson wrote:
> As for not being official "Legacy" address space, signing an LRSA with
> ARIN is problematic for many legacy address holders because it is not
> clear wether the rights one gets and gives up is worth it. Plus it
> can incur paying enormous annual fees (in the tens of thousands of
> dollars range) to ARIN.
Actually, ARIN has no jurisdiction over the legacy space. The NSF has ruled
that this (Postel) space is property of the legacy holders.
*ARDC owns 44/8. *
ARIN is required to manage the minimum of the database entries needed to make
this space work at no cost to.
Signing a legacy RSA would be a bad idea as ARDC would give up ownership of
44/8 which is worth in excess of $100M USD!
We need to stay away from ARIN as much as we can, ie do everything via rwhois
and DNS via AMPRnet servers, not ARIN. I'd even go so far to say that ARDC is
basically it's own RIR not bound by *ANY *ARIN policy.
--
Bryan Fields
727-409-1194 - Voice
727-214-2508 - Fax
http://bryanfields.net
An open question on ampr.org hostnames (see my response below):
On 2014-04-08 15:32, Brian Kantor wrote:
> Dean, I feel it would be a bad idea to delegate the forward lookup to your nameserver without also delegating the reverse lookup, which would be difficult and we do not do. You can continue to have as many names in the ampr.org dns like ns1.ae7q as you like by having John set them up for you, which will automatically set up the appropriate PTR record as well. I'd much rather you did it this way.
>
> Best wishes. - Brian
>
> On 2014-04-04 17:47, Dean Gibson wrote (to<bkantor(a)ucsd.ude>):
>>> I have IP address 44.24.240.173 in Bart Kus’s 44.24.240.0/20 block. I sent a request to John Hays, the admin for the 44.24.0.0/16 block to add the following records to the ampr.org domain:
>>> ns1.ae7q IN A 44.24.240.173
>>> ae7q IN NS ns1.ae7q
>>> This would allow me to create additional hostnames in the ae7q.ampr.org sub-domain, in my own DNS server. I’ve run BIND for 15 years, and this is a nice way to delegate a sub-domain; the ampr.org domain remains protected.
>>> John was able to add the first line to the domain, but not the second line, and he suggested that I contact you. I see other NS records in the ampr.org domain; is this something that you can do?
>>> Sincerely, Dean AE7Q
>>>
I understand the difficulty with delegating the reverse lookup in
general, which I was not requesting and don't need. It's often not done
on the Internet anyway for small (eg, hobby) servers, except for mail
servers, where it is a means of spam server detection. I've run multiple
sites with various functions (DNS, mail, web) on one box on the Internet
for 15+ years, and the only reverse DNS I've ever needed was for mail
servers.
Usually, a hobby machine serves several functions within the same box,
and multiple hostnames are mapped to the same IP address. In fact, for
ae7q.com (and my other domains), due to DNS requirements, I can't use
CNAMEs for the domain hostname (for those that leave off www.), the
nameserver hostname, or the mail server hostname (NS and MX records
can't reference a CNAME -- RFC 2181
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2181> section 10.3). These all use an
"A" record to assign the *same IP address* as the mail server (which
also can't use a CNAME, due to spam detection). That's three "A"
records to one IP address (and that's just in one domain), and it is a
very common practice. I do use CNAMEs other places.
I understand that you would like a PTR record for every hostname, but
that has the following negative consequences that I can see:
1. It encourages people to request a larger IP address block than they
need, and then create a multi-homed machine for the various
functions. I think it's a really bad idea to consume unnecessary IP
addresses, and I think it's already happening in the 44.x.x.x network.
2. For frequent changes, it unfairly and unduly burdens those
volunteers who have to respond to requests. I make *very* frequent
changes to my Internet and LAN domain records. I have over 50
network devices on my LAN at home on five subdomains, and I use DDNS
(both manually and via DHCP) for most of them (it's just easier than
changing a zone file and restarting BIND). Granted, most of those
won't be on the 44.x.x.x network, but the present scheme discourages
experimenting with configurations by amateurs who don't want to
burden the volunteers who make the ampr.org changes.
I would suggest that you reconsider your position of requiring a PTR
record for each hostname.
Much better to have a policy of encouraging *user-managed* subdomains,
in my opinion; that would help lead to a consistency in hostnames in
ampr.org (eg, all of the form <whatever>.<callsign>.ampr.org). A much
poorer alternative (also my opinion) is the present practice of having
end users to *submit to coordinators* CNAME records for subdomains of
any "A" records that are allocated to them.
Frankly, the former suggestion (user-managed subdomains where an
ampr.org coordinator adds the "NS" record *once*), is a lot less work,
in my opinion. Or is there a risk I'm not aware of? Remember, the
subdomains are served off of the user's DNS server(s), not the ampr.org
DNS servers.
Sincerely, Dean Gibson AE7Q
On 4/11/14, 12:04 PM, Bart Kus wrote:
> Well, IPIP itself is not the problem. It avoids the costs of Internet
> BGP peering. What is a problem is the lack of dead-peer-detection
> between IPIP gateways. If intra-AMPR BGP peering was actually deployed
> as part of the general recommendations then we wouldn't need to anycast
> to achieve redundancy. But as it stands, the deployed technologies are
> very light, and anycasting our IPIP endpoint is the easiest way to
> achieve the desired redundancy. We do plan to make special BGP+IPSec
> arrangements with select AMPRnet peers to further improve our
> availability and security, but there's no need to do any of that work on
> the mailing list.
I'd say we should keep it on the mailing list. I'm very interested in what
others are doing with BGP announced AMPRnet space!
I'd be interested in interconnecting if you need a gateway or something. I've
got a good relationship with my upstream in Tampa. Granted the latency to WA
is a bit much :)
FWIW I'll be in Belview for NANOG 61 in June.
--
Bryan Fields
727-409-1194 - Voice
727-214-2508 - Fax
http://bryanfields.net
Does such exist.... Has anyone created..... can said code be easily
separated / compiled separately.....
What I'm looking for is a "version" of nos that is devoid of any of it's
networking functionality or well at least the bottom 3 layers of the OSI
stack. The issue being that NOS has long been a standard and familiar
interface for networked amateur radio BBS systems. I'm good with that.
over the last 20+ years though we have moved to computers and operating
systems that are much more capable, especially when it comes to processing
speed, memory, and a decent built in network stack. I now no longer need
my application (BBS) to handle the network layer stuff but simply need what
amounts to a good BBS interface. can/has this functionality be/been
gutted/separated out from the NOS code base such that I can end up with an
application that simply is setup to listen on the proper port via init.d
and present *ONLY* the familiar bbs interface while the OS handles all the
networking stuff and the application not even being capable of such.
Eric
Good day to all,
Unfortunately my subscription options were set to nomail, so I have
not been following posts very reliably this past few months. Anyways,
just thought I would dig through the digest and comment on stuff.
> Doing the routing on the NOS side of things seems a bit backwards
> these days (cough encap.txt)
You don't have to use encap.txt anymore, depending on your
configuration. Brian introduced AMPRnet RIP broadcasts a few
years ago. Some of us use those now to update our NOS routes.
> Of course you cannot do that if you are still running NOS
> on an old DOS box.
Technically speaking you could always do encap.txt on a NOS
system running in DOS - I did it that way over 12 years ago.
> Does such exist.... Has anyone created..... can said code
> be easily separated / compiled separately.....
The irony is (and there was a lot of criticism towards the authors
at the time, this was before I took it over in 2004), the original
NOS was actually 'hacked' to give it BBS functionality, as well as
a few other features. Anythings possible, but removing the NOS from
NOS (think about it, that's what it would come down to) would be a
big waste of time and all you would have left is a BBS 'hack'.
Sound to me perhaps FBB is more what you're looking for. It's a BBS
first and foremost. Actually, how about BCM (Baybox) or OpenBCM out
of Europe. It's pretty slick stuff actually, check it out.
> don't say whether you're interested in a Windows or a Linux based
Believe it or not I have a text (console) based Windows (yeah, true
native windows not a DOS compile) version of JNOS, experimental like
all of the NOS stuff is, even got WINMOR running B2F forwarding with
RMS stations in both my windows and linux versions. Again, I'm an
experimenter so the software (like usual NOS style) is not always
the most user friendly. I'm just going to say, I'm encouraged for
my own ham radio needs. Multipsk as a packet modem works too :)
> This appears to be the only "maintained" version of JNOS
I took over from James Dugal in 2004, and rebranded it as JNOS 2.0, you
can see it in the credits on my official site for JNOS 2.0. James passed
away years ago, passing the tourch so to speak, as others did to him as
well when they got tired of working on it, or just had to give it up.
My primary development platform for years was LINUX, it still is, just
that I feel I need to get moving into the Windows (very untapped user
base) domain. Just wish I had more time to devote to it, I'm a busy
family and working man too like a lot of the people on this group.
> haven't looked at the code to see how deep into the stack he's
> getting but his dependence on winp cap indicates it still has some
> degree of coupling to layer 3.
The windows version I started with WinPcap cause I wanted a quick way
to tie into the WIN32 tcp stack. I've tried to do raw sockets and it's
just plain ugly and I got frustrated. The WinPcap has turned out to be
pretty decent for what I need.
I use the original NOS ip stack code, no windows IP or TCP functions,
it's all NOS (yeah obsolete, exciting eh) code for ip routing, and
such.
Anyways, just thought I would try and clarify a few things. Feel free
to ask me if you have more questions about all of this.
With kind regards,
Maiko Langelaar / VE4KLM
* http://www.langelaar.net/projects/jnos2
