44net June 2024

44net@mailman.ampr.org

33 participants
35 discussions

Re: IPIP tunnel for Mikrotik
by KUN LIN 19 Jun '24

19 Jun '24

Oh, I am on ROS7/CHR. Is there a way to get it work on ROS7? Kun ________________________________ From: Marius Petrescu via 44net <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 9:18 To: 44net(a)mailman.ampr.org <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> Subject: [44net] Re: IPIP tunnel for Mikrotik The v3.1 scripts are for ROS up to 6.40, and the v3.2 scripts from ROS 6.41 up to the latest v6 releases. The scripts do NOT work on ROS 7 due to the fact that the RIP handling changed and the RIP timers do not work correctly. Marius, YO2LOJ On 18/09/2023 18:01, KUN LIN via 44net wrote: Hi Has anyone setup the IPIP tunnel successfully in Mikrotik? I think the instruction in Wiki is written for ROS 2.0. Things has changed a lot and I have trouble following. I created the IPIP tunnel in the interface and not sure what to do next. I added my IP subnet to the IP tab. The RIP configuration menu is very different now. Kun _______________________________________________ 44net mailing list -- 44net(a)mailman.ampr.org<mailto:44net@mailman.ampr.org> To unsubscribe send an email to 44net-leave(a)mailman.ampr.org<mailto:44net-leave@mailman.ampr.org>

5 11

Re: Organization Callsigns (was: Re: Update re: subdomains)
by Dan Cross 15 Jun '24

15 Jun '24

On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 3:30 AM Chris via 44net <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> wrote: > [snip] > 2. In relation to point 1. How do we vet the person requesting access to use an organisation’s call sign? This is really only an issue for US based clubs as the call sign has a trustee listed on the ULS database, but it would seem, that person is not always able/willing/interested in creating an account on the portal to have the call sign verified. This certainly needs more thought. > > The ideal situation would be for the trustee to create an account on the portal, verify the call sign, then hand it off to another member in the organisation, i.e. once setup they do not have to be the POC for the call sign - is this really asking too much of someone who has already agreed to be the trustee, which arguably comes with such responsibilities? This will, of course, be case dependent. In some cases, yes, it really is asking too much. In other cases, no. Should the trustee be involved at all? I would say that yes, they should. Some sort of proactive means for them to acknowledge delegation seems reasonable. But there ought to be a minimally invasive way for them to be, probably one that doesn't involve the portal. Taking a step back and trying to examine it from a holistic standpoint, it's about striking a balance between validating the authority of using the call to prevent abuse, and the bureaucratic hassle involved for the users/trustees. Merely being a trustee requires very little administrative burden. As I understand it, in the US, it can all be handled via mail through the US postal service; occasionally one sends the equivalent of a postcard to the FCC. That's it. This can obviously be done by nearly anyone, including by folks who are not technical, don't use computers, etc. As has been mentioned, e.g. by AE0JE, such people certainly exist. And even where folks have the technical expertise to do this, they may have neither the time nor the desire. As I mentioned earlier, I'm pretty much the only one in my club pushing to make use of AMPRNet. No one else particularly cares---I hope they will once they see how some of the cool stuff one can do with it, but we're not there yet. Forcing our callsign trustee to create an account on the portal, presumably going through his own verification process (requiring tickets and so on) all just for him to say, "yes, Dan can use the club's callsign to request an allocation" sounds like a good way to make the project stall indefinitely. Being the trustee for a callsign does not really confer any additional status on the person; among many clubs it's a minor chore taken on by whatever member who agrees to do it, but the responsibility can be passed around between different people over time. For instance, consider what happens if the trustee moves and leaves the club, or loses interest in radio, or (sadly) becomes an SK? The club doesn't necessarily cease to exist, and the callsign is still perfectly valid, but the trustee responsibility necessarily moves to someone else. This must be accounted for in some way in whatever policy emerges around this. - Dan C.

5 7

Re: Club Callsign Verification
by Eric Johnson 15 Jun '24

15 Jun '24

Ok, makes sense. It sounds like there is a ham responsible for maintaining the node. Why couldn't you use that ham's callsign for DNS services? Eric AE0JE On Sat, Jun 15, 2024, 1:55 PM Terence Theijn <terence(a)theijn.nl> wrote: > Ibm isn’t the user/maintainer they just host the site. They don’t have > access to or are allowed to use the network in any way. They just host the > pop in my example. > > So just providing roof access and power. > > 73 > > On 15 Jun 2024, at 19:46, Eric Johnson via 44net <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> > wrote: > > > I understand it's not a repeater, that's just the best analogy I have. We > have a similar system here, but it's not as well-known or widespread as > hamnet. > > Usually, any DNS name that resolves to an IP is equivalent. Can you > elaborate on why you couldn't use a subdomain on a callsign? > > Furthermore, could you address the questions regarding non-ham (IBM) use > of this system? > > Eric AE0JE > > On Sat, Jun 15, 2024, 1:38 PM Terence Theijn <terence(a)theijn.nl> wrote: > >> Hamnet pop isn’t a radio repeater. It’s a pop for hamnet. We call the 44 >> net hamnet here and it runs on wireless links. >> >> It’s a complete wireless mesh network with many p2p links providing >> network connectivity to other hams/repeaters etc. >> >> So just adding a subdomain before a callsign isn’t going to cut the needs. >> >> 73 >> >> PD3T >> >> On 15 Jun 2024, at 14:27, Eric Johnson <micromashor(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> Chris: Sounds good, thank you. >> >> Terence, >> >> I am not the most familiar with hamnet, although at some point, there has >> to be a ham involved, right? The way repeaters typically work here is that >> a ham or group of hams speaks to a building owner and asks for an agreement >> to host a repeater and a little bit of rooftop space. That repeater is then >> usually referred to by the callsign of the ham(s) who maintain it and have >> the agreement with the building owner. >> >> Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but does hamnet usually work in a >> similar way? If so, couldn't the site be named pi90ibm.pd3t.ampr.org, >> assuming you are the maintainer of that site? >> >> If there isn't a ham involved at any step: >> - How is it legal use of the amateur bands? >> - Is it really a ham radio network at that point? >> >> Eric AE0JE >> >> On Sat, Jun 15, 2024, 6:01 AM Terence Theijn <terence(a)theijn.nl> wrote: >> >>> I see a lot of issues with hamnet pops without clubcallsings and are >>> just commercial building owners willing to host the housing for a hamnet >>> pop to extend the amprnet wireless network range. >>> >>> You do want those site to be recognizable some of those sites can even >>> host services like remote sdrs. >>> >>> For example ibm is willing to host a pop for network coverage. To make >>> it recognizable you can name it pi90ibm. This aint an official callsign. >>> How is one going to verify that? >>> Did you think about those? >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> PD3T >>> >>> >>> On 15 Jun 2024, at 09:12, Chris via 44net <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>> A copy of the official PDF download from the ULS site of the club’s call >>> sign; >>> >>> _______________________________________________ > 44net mailing list -- 44net(a)mailman.ampr.org > To unsubscribe send an email to 44net-leave(a)mailman.ampr.org > >

3 3

Re: Club Callsign Verification
by Eric Johnson 15 Jun '24

15 Jun '24

I understand it's not a repeater, that's just the best analogy I have. We have a similar system here, but it's not as well-known or widespread as hamnet. Usually, any DNS name that resolves to an IP is equivalent. Can you elaborate on why you couldn't use a subdomain on a callsign? Furthermore, could you address the questions regarding non-ham (IBM) use of this system? Eric AE0JE On Sat, Jun 15, 2024, 1:38 PM Terence Theijn <terence(a)theijn.nl> wrote: > Hamnet pop isn’t a radio repeater. It’s a pop for hamnet. We call the 44 > net hamnet here and it runs on wireless links. > > It’s a complete wireless mesh network with many p2p links providing > network connectivity to other hams/repeaters etc. > > So just adding a subdomain before a callsign isn’t going to cut the needs. > > 73 > > PD3T > > On 15 Jun 2024, at 14:27, Eric Johnson <micromashor(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Chris: Sounds good, thank you. > > Terence, > > I am not the most familiar with hamnet, although at some point, there has > to be a ham involved, right? The way repeaters typically work here is that > a ham or group of hams speaks to a building owner and asks for an agreement > to host a repeater and a little bit of rooftop space. That repeater is then > usually referred to by the callsign of the ham(s) who maintain it and have > the agreement with the building owner. > > Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but does hamnet usually work in a > similar way? If so, couldn't the site be named pi90ibm.pd3t.ampr.org, > assuming you are the maintainer of that site? > > If there isn't a ham involved at any step: > - How is it legal use of the amateur bands? > - Is it really a ham radio network at that point? > > Eric AE0JE > > On Sat, Jun 15, 2024, 6:01 AM Terence Theijn <terence(a)theijn.nl> wrote: > >> I see a lot of issues with hamnet pops without clubcallsings and are just >> commercial building owners willing to host the housing for a hamnet pop to >> extend the amprnet wireless network range. >> >> You do want those site to be recognizable some of those sites can even >> host services like remote sdrs. >> >> For example ibm is willing to host a pop for network coverage. To make it >> recognizable you can name it pi90ibm. This aint an official callsign. How >> is one going to verify that? >> Did you think about those? >> >> Regards >> >> PD3T >> >> >> On 15 Jun 2024, at 09:12, Chris via 44net <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> wrote: >> >> A copy of the official PDF download from the ULS site of the club’s call >> sign; >> >>

4 3

Re: Club Callsign Verification
by Chris 15 Jun '24

15 Jun '24

Hi Terence, As I said previously in relation to subdomains - other formats will be considered on a case by case basis, if someone requests a subdomain that isn’t a call sign there are other ways of verifying the identify of the person should ARDC decide that the request is appropriate. 73, Chris - G1FEF — ARDC Administrator Web: https://www.ardc.net > On 15 Jun 2024, at 11:01, Terence Theijn <terence(a)theijn.nl> wrote: > > I see a lot of issues with hamnet pops without clubcallsings and are just commercial building owners willing to host the housing for a hamnet pop to extend the amprnet wireless network range. > > You do want those site to be recognizable some of those sites can even host services like remote sdrs. > > For example ibm is willing to host a pop for network coverage. To make it recognizable you can name it pi90ibm. This aint an official callsign. How is one going to verify that? > Did you think about those? > > Regards > > PD3T > > >> On 15 Jun 2024, at 09:12, Chris via 44net <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> wrote: >> >> A copy of the official PDF download from the ULS site of the club’s call sign;

1 0

Re: Club Callsign Verification
by Eric Johnson 15 Jun '24

15 Jun '24

Chris: Sounds good, thank you. Terence, I am not the most familiar with hamnet, although at some point, there has to be a ham involved, right? The way repeaters typically work here is that a ham or group of hams speaks to a building owner and asks for an agreement to host a repeater and a little bit of rooftop space. That repeater is then usually referred to by the callsign of the ham(s) who maintain it and have the agreement with the building owner. Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but does hamnet usually work in a similar way? If so, couldn't the site be named pi90ibm.pd3t.ampr.org, assuming you are the maintainer of that site? If there isn't a ham involved at any step: - How is it legal use of the amateur bands? - Is it really a ham radio network at that point? Eric AE0JE On Sat, Jun 15, 2024, 6:01 AM Terence Theijn <terence(a)theijn.nl> wrote: > I see a lot of issues with hamnet pops without clubcallsings and are just > commercial building owners willing to host the housing for a hamnet pop to > extend the amprnet wireless network range. > > You do want those site to be recognizable some of those sites can even > host services like remote sdrs. > > For example ibm is willing to host a pop for network coverage. To make it > recognizable you can name it pi90ibm. This aint an official callsign. How > is one going to verify that? > Did you think about those? > > Regards > > PD3T > > > On 15 Jun 2024, at 09:12, Chris via 44net <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> wrote: > > A copy of the official PDF download from the ULS site of the club’s call > sign; > >

2 1

Re: Club Callsign Verification
by Eric Johnson 15 Jun '24

15 Jun '24

Chris and the group, I don't yet see a thread for this one, please forgive me if I missed it. --<snip>-- 2. In relation to point 1. How do we vet the person requesting access to use an organisation’s call sign? This is really only an issue for US based clubs as the call sign has a trustee listed on the ULS database, but it would seem, that person is not always able/willing/interested in creating an account on the portal to have the call sign verified. This certainly needs more thought. The ideal situation would be for the trustee to create an account on the portal, verify the call sign, then hand it off to another member in the organisation, i.e. once setup they do not have to be the POC for the call sign - is this really asking too much of someone who has already agreed to be the trustee, which arguably comes with such responsibilities? --</snip>-- I agree with everything you say insofar as this would be the solution in the ideal world. However, unfortunately, in cases like mine, this is not always the case. I'll spare you the details, but the gist is that the trustee has agreed to "hang on" to the callsign until we can get some issues sorted (which is turning out to take over a year due to bureaucratic processes). Our trustee is generally very busy, and to actively pursue the process of getting portal-verified would be a big ask, and would likely require a lot of nagging from me for it to ever get done. Likewise, many of the administrative tasks of the club have been delegated to me, as I am familiar with the processes and have the time to navigate them. In the US, only the trustee has access to download the Official copy of the club license through the ULS. Therefore, if someone presents an Official copy of the license as verification material, one could be reasonably confident that the trustee has entrusted them to act on the club's behalf. While I don't believe that simply having the Official copy should grant someone the "keys to the kingdom", a simple verification email to the club and/or the trustee would be sufficient to ensure the delegate is acting in good faith. It's important to note that getting verified in the portal and a quick "Yep, permission granted!" reply to a verification email differ significantly in magnitude. Is anyone else in a similar situation, or had similar experiences that could weigh in? Eric AE0JE

2 1

44Net Update, June 14, 2024
by Rebecca Key 14 Jun '24

14 Jun '24

Hey Everyone, Below are some updates from this week regarding the 44Net Portal: ** ** As of today, about 36 new portal tickets remain (20% increase from last week), and about 276 tickets are open and awaiting response (4% increase from last week). Despite an increase in tickets from last week, the number of new tickets and the number of tickets open/awaiting response have either decreased within the last two weeks or have remained constant (28% decrease and no significant change, respectively). Since April 3, we have closed 675 tickets (6% increase from last week). ** ** Earlier this week, Rosy KJ7RYV sent out an email about subdomain updates. In an effort to unblock our current users, our temporary steps forward are as follows: * Anyone with an ampr.org subdomain prior to 4/3/2024 will, for now, have full access to their DNS records, pending the required call sign verification * Once a call sign is verified, you can automatically create a subdomain with the callsign.ampr.org format. Other requests that fall outside of this format will require review and approval. * Please note that, moving forward, we will be limiting the number of subdomains outside of callsign.ampr.org and these current exceptions are temporary. ** ** Finally, as many of you have asked about ways to help with the portal:if you come across something in the docs that’s not clear or intuitive, or if you have other feedback, please let us know at newportal(a)ardc.net <mailto:newportal@ardc.net>. The link to the portal docs can be found here: https://www.ardc.net/wp-content/uploads/portal-2.0-technical-documentation-…. ** ** As always, let us know if you have any questions! ** ** 73 and have a great weekend, ** ** Rebecca KO4KVG -- Rebecca Key - KO4KVG Communicaions Manager Amateur Radio Digital Communications (ARDC) ardc.net

1 0

Point 3 - The subdomain policy that is in progress
by lleachii＠aol.com 14 Jun '24

14 Jun '24

Chris, Thanks for steering things back on topic. I trust if I maintain civil discussions, all is well.Since we now understand privately Rosy in judgment of you position deferres to you technically, which I respect - I hope you now consider my simple 2 inquiries that began (what I understood) to be why I responded about one or two of my examle records that I'm having issues claiming (as the tickets are on hold for different reasons, one assuming I just accepted a categorical name change in lieu of my claim ticketS), where you mentioned a ticket - as follows:I have logged in and understand that the portal system says "with user".What I do not understand is this -Is there a policy in place?Will you then proceed to delete these "non callsign" entries once one it is implemented?I have some other things to discuss, like the server in the UK that till has high latency for users on other continents, etc. - I'll message you.- KB3VWG

3 2

Point 1
by lleachii＠aol.com 14 Jun '24

14 Jun '24

Keep in mind at least in FCC land.- We have a time frame to file for callsign of related SK, etc.- "Memorial Clubs" that assume names, etc.Also, some resources were always to be assigned to the RACES or ARES callsigns after this infrastructure was completed (passed architect approval before this, but BGP/whatever tunneling will keep us compatible with all) may slow us.Likewise, e.g. they work in unison and just wanted you consider that when programming the backends of how callsigns work for users.I believe both in a programmatic workflow would refer to those like myself (e.g. aware of what your referencing) as neither trustee/president/Radio officer would directly answer. I thought of mentioning Point 2 here, but 1 seems more relevant. 73,- KB3VWG

1 0

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

44net June 2024