> Bandwidth, no data, but it's likely low. Email is a low-bandwidth
> application. There are about 700 subscribers.
> The entire Mailman installation, including the contents of the archive,
> is small, about 200 MB. Most of that is the archive.
> You could probably host the whole thing on a Raspberry Pi with a USB
> stick, but I wouldn't want to.
When you need hosting for that kind of service we can offer a VM on our VMware ESXi 6.0
host in Amsterdam (on 44.137.42.0/27, BGP routed via 44.137.0.0/16).
There are 2 HPe Proliant servers each with local RAID-1 disks, a VM image is copied from
one host to the other nightly and we can change over manually on catastrophic hardware
failure. Offsite backups of the VM images are made as well.
It is connected to Internet at 1 Gbit/s and to our radio network at 40 Mbit/s.
Network access is via a MikroTik CCR router providing firewall configurable at port level.
This is where gw-44-137 runs.
Rob
All,
I've noticed some pings from portal.ampr.org:
> 2017-09-11 17:32:25.846 48.191 ICMP 81.174.235.134:0 ->
> 44.60.44.10:8.0 38 3192 1
Is this an automated software pinging?
- Lynwood
KB3VWG
Personally, I think Facebook is a terrible choice. User information there is not protected and is monetized. As a discussion forum it is useless. It is ad laden, tracker laden and not user friendly. I don't have a Facebook account anymore and I am not interested in getting one.
This forum email list works fine for me. If we need another email server there are several in the amateur radio community to chose from, including TAPR. If we want a commercialized product, there is groups.io which has a large community of ham radio related lists, mostly migrated from yahoo.
Just my opinion.
73 de bill K7WXW
> How about we start a second email list to discuss where to have future
> discussions?
The advantage of a USENET server is that you can create groups for different types of
discussion. Clients also typically offer "kill thread" functionality that makes them
ignore future postings in the same thread.
Rob
Bill,
The best person to answer is Brian Kantor. Till he chimes in...
I don't expect to see IPv4 switched off on the general internet in my
lifetime. The adoption rate of v6 is pretty sad. We don't even have
everyone dual stacks yet.
There has been some casual discussions from foreign hams to try and
get an IPv6 allocation for ham radio from RIPE ( I believe).. but
there will be so many addresses available I am not even sure ham radio
needs its own allocation.
Moving forward the whole online ham authentication thing (that OH7LZB
has pointed out) makes more sense in my opinion. Use one of your
many-many IPv6 addreses from your ISP, but add some sort of
authentication to the process of interacting with other ham services.
That is presently a lure of 44net.. knowing the guy on the other end
is a ham, and whatever traffic is being generated (VOIP, data etc)
should it key an actual transmitter it will be legit.
[There was a proposal in 1998 to encode a "call sign" into IPv6
address titled "Take the Next Step with the Next Generation Protocol"
by Naoto Shimazaki. And in 2012 a few members from the Mesa Amateur
Radio Club of Arizona took this to code.)
I guess the more pertinent questions I have for Brian would be:
Are there a plan so that folks who only have IPv6 commercial address
or are suck behind carrier grade IPv4 with no firewall access (some
cellular carriers presently) can participate with the amprnet? In
other words are there plans to make amprgw dual stack?
73
Steve, KB9MWR
>OM,
>
>I'm a bit behind the times, so please bear with me. Is there a plan
>and schedule for ampr.net to convert to IPv6?
>
>Is there a consensus on the conversion? We're a pretty small part of the net, after all, and my first >reaction to thinking of IPv6 is "Do I have to?"
>
>BTW, will ucsd be able to tunnel IPv4 44/8 addresses over IPv6?
>
>As I said, I'm out of practice with networking, and I just realized that I don't know if/when the ampr.net >will switchover, nor how it will affect the existing 44/8 allocations. Brian?
>
>Thanks for your time.
>
>73,
>
>Bill, W4EWH
Not a fan of facebook either. this email list works just fine for me.
73 Russ WL7LP
--------------------------------------------
On Sun, 9/10/17, Brian Kantor <Brian(a)UCSD.Edu> wrote:
Subject: Re: [44net] New Facebook Group
To: "AMPRNet working group" <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu>
Date: Sunday, September 10, 2017, 6:16 PM
I think this was a bad idea.
- Brian
On
Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 09:24:38PM -0400, Bill Horne wrote:
> I've put up a new group on Facebook,
called "AmprNet." The title is short
> and to the point, but doesn't call out
our IPv4 history.
>
>
Feel free to join and comment.
>
> 73,
>
> Bill W4EWH
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
