> USENET is obsolete. Don't waste your time on it.
Well, not as obsolete as a mailing list...
A closed news server would be much more convenient to use for discussions like this than a list...
(and of course you could run it on a Raspberry Pi :-)
Rob
If you're one of the very few people who have ever taken advantage of
the ability to read USENET news via AMPRNet and the news.ucsd.edu server,
you should be aware that that server is failing from old age and will be
taken out of service soon. We don't plan to replace it; Usenet itself
is fading away. I co-authored the NNTP protocol some 31 years ago;
that's a pretty good run for any internet standard.
If you really need your Usenet fix every day, you might want to
investigate www.eternal-september.org, which offers free Usenet access
(but has very limited resources).
- Brian
Brian,
Can we make this list open to just those named in the description of the group… amprnet users and gateway operators for ops related items.
--
Fredric Moses - W8FSM - WQOG498
fred(a)moses.bz
> I think you meant /48’s or at least a /63 -- a /64 is meant to be the
> smallest subnet -- it is not meant to be sub-divided any further. Because
> some ISPs are allocating /64’s to their customers, I also think a ham-radio
> allocation would be good.
A /64 would be enough for a radio amateur with a simple network who wants to join
a ham-radio network. It would surely not be optimal, but I would not expect an ISP
that is that clueless (to allocate a single /64 to their customers) to be willing
to route foreign network space to their customers. So what use would it be to
have portable address space as a solution for that?
Rob
It's important to be aware of the timeline but this anniversary might
also be a good time to look back at the history and think about the
impact this assignment has made.
What *new* technologies has been developed because of this network?
Which crises have been mitigated using this network? Have it helped to
spread the HAM radio "spirit" to the young people? What other good
things have this network done?
It's very sad for me to say that the only thing I can see about this
network is a bunch of guys trying to stick with old technology (RIP?
please.) at all cost and arguing who is more important in a tree of
people allocating numbers.
A /8 network is a great value nowadays, the IPv4 especially in Europe is
in a huge crisis and getting new addresses is nearly impossible. From
the other hand most of the address space in this network is unused but
when you try to request allocation for yourself you can easily get
rejected because of silly reasons. (I didn't even try to request one for
myself after my friends showed me the coordinator responses.)
There might be some things going on the used parts of the network but I
couldn't find any example that could be genuinely useful to the world.
Could you please prove me wrong or if I'm right try to consider sharing
the address space with a "new" movement of hacking and hackerspaces? HAM
radio should be all about hacking [1] but frankly speaking I don't see
much of it in HAM radio space these days. There are some exceptions -
i.e. "OFDM modem" thread from the last days but there are as rare as
freakin' unicorns.
This message is not meant to be mean. I'm just trying to pinpoint some
things I've seen as an observer of this network and HAM radio (mostly in
Poland but also the "worldwide" parts) and share some ideas how the
things can be done better and provide a better value to the whole world.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_culture
--
I wish you all the best
SQ9PID
Hi,
Try "sixornot" for IPv6
status: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/sixornot/
It works great for me with FF release 55 and 56 beta.
Depending upon what version of Firefox you're using the web site may
say "This add-on is not compatible with your version of
Firefox.". This is due to Mozilla killing off all add-ons not
implemented with WebExtensions starting with FF version
57. sixornot will still run fine up through FF version
56. Download it anyway! After FF 56 you'll have to switch to the
PaleMoon browser (sixornot works great on it for me too).
73,
-Tom WS7S
At 12:16 PM 9/4/2017, you wrote:
>Does anyone know of nifty little firefox add-on that will denote that
>you are connected via IPv6 to the site? I'd like to be more aware of
>what all supports it in the course of my general browsing. I think
>that could really bring an awareness. Kind like the more recent "This
>site may not be secure" when Browsers detect login details over a non
>HTTPS connection.
>
>Having to sniff it with netstat to tell if its 4 or 6 is less than appealing.
John,
I see IPv6 to http://nw7dr.ampr.org/ with netstat:
TCP [2605:a000:1508:c178:78a8:fe60:2b78:1495]:65219
[2001:470:b:40f::3]:http ESTABLISHED
TCP [2605:a000:1508:c178:78a8:fe60:2b78:1495]:65220
[2001:470:b:40f::3]:http ESTABLISHED
TCP [2605:a000:1508:c178:78a8:fe60:2b78:1495]:65221
[2001:470:b:40f::3]:http ESTABLISHED
Pinging k7ve.ampr.org [2001:470:b:40f::2] with 32 bytes of data:
Destination host unreachable.
Destination host unreachable.
Pinging nw7dr.ampr.org [2001:470:b:40f::3] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 2001:470:b:40f::3: time=99ms
Reply from 2001:470:b:40f::3: time=102ms
Reply from 2001:470:b:40f::3: time=117ms
Does anyone know of nifty little firefox add-on that will denote that
you are connected via IPv6 to the site? I'd like to be more aware of
what all supports it in the course of my general browsing. I think
that could really bring an awareness. Kind like the more recent "This
site may not be secure" when Browsers detect login details over a non
HTTPS connection.
Having to sniff it with netstat to tell if its 4 or 6 is less than appealing.
> Phil Karn, KA9Q, invented the /N network-bits-width notation back in ham
> AMPRNet-related documents in the 1980s, so it should be more properly
> known perhaps as "Karn notation" rather than "CIDR notation".
That certainly would be good, he has done tremendous work for the acceptance
of internet protocols.
> I like to bring this up from time to time to remind people that inventors
> deserve credit especially when they don't charge for their inventions.
Some time ago I noticed that my hack in PE1CHL-NET version 950819 (Aug 19, 1995):
TCP SYN packets are examined when routed, and the MSS option will be
adjusted down to the maximum MSS possible on the incoming and outgoing
interfaces. Thus, a more optimal end-to-end MSS is chosen, and
fragmentation is avoided (e.g. when running IP over NET/ROM somewhere
inbetween the endpoints)
pre-dates the addition of this feature in e.g. Cisco routers (ip tcp adjust-mss)
by several years.... that would certainly have been patentable...
> I'm reminded of this because Phil and I had dinner last night (he's
> doing well, thanks) and got to chatting about the old days of packet
> and AMPRNet.
Great to hear that!
Rob
>> 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?
>
>(I think you meant 'stuck', not 'suck'. Is that a Freudian slip?)
>
>There's no plan to make amprgw dual stack. I'm not sure that the question
>is meaningful; what would it DO with an incoming IPv6-only packet?
>It's not going to be a NAT64 gateway, that's for certain.
Okay, its just something I have been wondering. I feel as commercial
IPv4 addresses become more scarce, and more carrier grade NAT comes
into play there will be more hams looking for solutions for the
various internet ham radio services (IRLP, Echolink, D-Star etc),
where they need the ability to control their port forwarding/firewall
stuff. Basically I see a large number of folks seeking commercial VPN
services.
>
>Interoperability of IPv4-only and IPv6-only hosts is a sticky wicket
>that in my opinion NO ONE has solved satisfactorily.
>- Brian
I am slowing learning what a complicated mess it is (going to be) myself.
