44net

44net@mailman.ampr.org

2 participants
3170 discussions

Re: [44net] directly connected and tunnel subnets

by Bryan Fields

On 7/16/13 4:17 PM, Brian Kantor wrote: > In addition to whatever its activities require, it costs around $500 > a year to just maintain a non-profit corp in California. > > Donations haven't kept up with that, much less to defray the initial > startup costs. We have no money. Why incorporate in Cali? Not to get political here, but it's the least business friendly state in the union. I have 3 LLC's in Florida, and spend less than 400 dollars to matain all 3 LLC's. Cost to incorporate a non-profit is $70, which is about half of a non-profit. I think status with the IRS which would make donations tax deducible is a no-brainier. -- Bryan Fields 727-409-1194 - Voice 727-214-2508 - Fax http://bryanfields.net

11 years, 5 months

Re Networks in OZ

by VK4FQ/VK4TTT Sam

Guys I am trying to create a resonable map of ampr ips that are in use in Australia so when people request they canbe given ranges that are not being used. If you have or no of a range of IP's that are being used downunder, could you please let me know by emailing samantha(a)smellyblackdog.com.au Regards Sam Amateur Radio Callsign: VK4FQ / VK4TTT Owner: VK4RCN P25 Repeater Cairns Sysop: APRS Cairns Mobile: VK4FQ-9 (vhf) VK4FQ-15 (Hf)

11 years, 5 months

portal: database damage

by Brian Kantor

Chris reports that he's repaired the portal allocations mechanism but that some recent allocation requests were lost and will have to be resubmitted. The cause was apparently an unexpected power failure in the data centre. - Brian ----- Forwarded message from Chris <chris(a)g1fef.co.uk> ----- Looks like some records were corrupted, I've repaired the db by rolling it back, but that means the most recent transactions where lost, so recent allocation requests will have to be re-submitted. Cheers, Chris ----- End forwarded message -----

11 years, 5 months

Re: [44net] Re Networks in OZ

by Bryan Fields

On 7/13/13 12:31 PM, Lin Holcomb wrote: > My understanding is that there may be some rouge direct connected > 44 address ranges out there too. This is from a friend at a national > CATV/ISP provider. > I don't remember the specifics but prior to the policy Change by AMPR > regarding this allocation we found some of these in their AS. If memory > serves some were in VK. This is some thing we really need to run down.... > With 16million addresses this is a hard task to police. I am guessing > that ISPs have whole groups that just deal with rouge networks in their IP > space. Just running a scan is not going to work as most ISPs will shut ya > down if you tried to scan a whole class A. It really needs to be looked at > in a AS. Not Brian's at UCSD as his will be correct. Well anyone running BGP with a full feed on their router can see what ASN's announce any netblock. The bigger question I see is how do you reliably link all of 44/8 so everyone can see everyone else. -- Bryan Fields 727-409-1194 - Voice 727-214-2508 - Fax http://bryanfields.net

11 years, 5 months

Connectivity to AMPRnet and video

by Jesse Hindmarsh

In one of my last posts, I mentioned about connecting to the AMPRnet via DMVPN or PPTP which seemed to tangent into a hardware/software discussion. I sat quietly and enjoyed the many perspectives that many had to share. I have been connecting via a combination of Linux and DMVPN for the last two weeks and it has worked as expected. A few even used the PPTP service I have setup and had good results. I want to get some services deployed to see how flexible this setup is and if there are any issues before I attempt to extend my network using 2 ghz and 5 ghz links across the valley. Right now I have a videoconference station setup on 44.64.192.2 which anyone is welcome to connect to. Thanks Jesse - WC3XS Sent from my iPhone

11 years, 5 months

Re: [44net] hardware vs. software

by lleachii＠aol.com

Regarding a few things mentioned setup/encryption - 802.11 encryption would not be necessary if you use a band not shared with Part 15 Users - 802.11 encryption technically does not obscure the fact that you are transmitting standard 802.11 Wireless Ethernet traffic - also, this debate can extend into HTTPS traffic over Amateur RF, except in an Emergency (transferring Health information for a hospital, for example, REQUIRES encryption in the US [HIPPA]) - even if HTTPS traffic is sent, packet inspection of the frames would reveal it is a HTTPS packet, its source and its destination - making the callsign the SSID is not the only method of complying with station identification rules; but it is the easiest - There are other methods of encrypting a WiFi signal other than a pre-shared key (many stations commented that they key must be posted or announced), user account authentication is another method regulation - regarding sending a music/video file or stream via 802.11 - the communication would be data, in the analog world, I would assume this would be similar to sending the sheet music via snail mail - regarding N6MEF's concern regarding 3rd party email communications, email is not an "automatically forwarded" technology; an amateur does not automatically receive that message through any technology governed by Part 97 (there are two exceptions I can imagine - if the amateur maintains his own email server at the receiving [client] end of the radio link or provides email as a service to non-amateurs) - I'm somewhat lost as to the concerns regarding inbound traffic, the problem only arises if the intent is to run infrastructure (i.e. services) over RF for non-amateur use, otherwise, the requests would initiate from an amateur station and would not be 3rd party - servers and devices on AMPR can be firewalled to only accept traffic from 44.0.0.0/8, in fact my DNS server (44.60.44.3) is configured to only resolve non AMPR IPs and domains for 44/8 traffic - if a non-amateur is reaching a 44/8, they MUST be using commodity Internet, if the services are on the gateway or on a device connected by wire or Part 15 device, that is not governed by Part 97 (Part 97 only governs Amateur RF) - I cannot find 97.109(e) - I'm not certain how 97.115 relates, except for 97.115(c) "(c) No station may transmit third party communications while being automatically controlled except a station transmitting a RTTY or data emission." Since it is a data emission, 3rd party communications can be transmitted - I'm not certain how 97.219 applies, given that email is not a message forwarding system for the 3rd party (email receipt must be initiated by the amateur, that communication is between the Amateur and their email server, not between the Amateur and the 3rd party) This is a good thread, and I'm still reading through, I hope I have not missed anything thus far. 73, Lynwood KB3VWG

11 years, 5 months

Re: [44net] Use of higher bands

by Michael E. Fox - N6MEF

Eric, I applaud your intent. But, as far as I can tell, there are several major issues with what you're saying: 1) The FCC rules push me to NOT use amateur bands for data. Any application that is actually useful is going to be something that communicate with non-hams, too. Look at the popularity of WL2K. But Part 97 prohibits traffic from being automatically forwarded if it was originated by a 3rd party. So I can send an email to my grandmother. But she can't send me a message if delivering it would require automatic forwarding (such as between JNOS BBSs) over an amateur frequency to reach me. So that means I need a non-amateur network path to every machine. So we're working on that, including using 5.8G consumer stuff. But, gee whiz, once that's done, and I've got a few Mbps between each system, (and it's encrypted to boot!) why use the amateur frequencies at all? In my mind, studying for and getting an amateur radio license should give you MORE privileges. And sure, we get access to more frequencies, but we're highly restricted on what we can do with them. It's like giving a kid a new bike and then telling him he can only use it in the driveway. What's the point? 2) Can't get there from here. Here in silicon valley, 900 is pretty worthless - much too noisy. 2.4 is very crowded. It's hard to get enough S/N to rise above the noise floor. We shoot point-to-point 5.8G links using 5 degree dishes to give us enough S/N. Sector antennas just didn't work. But we can't use 5.8G at 2 of our locations because trees obstruct the path. Anything higher in frequency would be even worse. 3) COTS is available? I don't think so. Not really in any useful, accessible way. We use the Ubiquity stuff on 5.8G. I don't want to make any modifications that will void a warranty. (Actually, I don't want to dink around with hardware modifications anyway.) But even if that is possible, see problem #1. What would be the point unless it's just to talk to the other hams that have done the same thing? In all of silicon valley -- a few million people -- I can probably count the number of hams with the time and desire to do that on one hand. Now, lest you think I'm just a nay-sayer - you can see what we do here: http://www.scc-ares-races.org/packet.html I'm the sysop for 6 JNOS BBSs, including the gateways and other network stuff. I authored most of the content on the above web page and the pages it links to. (That page doesn't mention the email gateway services we're about to roll out). I think focusing on the technology is the wrong thing to do. Figure out what application you want to enable and then solve that problem. For our county, our application was mostly emcomm and the ability to locate anywhere in the county (literally anywhere, with or without power, with or without Internet) and be able to send/receive text and forms data. The county uses several ICS-type forms. City CERT orgs send damage report summary forms. The hospitals have several forms they use. It's a really big deal for them. That's all made possible by custom software written by several folks here. So, what is the application that will drive more AMPRnet use? Honestly, because of #1 above, I don't think there is one! ;-( But hey, if anyone has ideas, I'm always looking for the next thing. Michael N6MEF -----Original Message----- >Again I ask why are the higher bands not as attractive? Readily available >COTS Gear is available for 900Mhz, 2.4GHz, 3.4Ghz, 5.7Ghz, 10Ghz, & 24Ghz. >We ought to be looking to fill 5.7, 10, & 24 to the point that we can >show value in being there. it is our non use of these bands that makes >them easy targets for reallocation and takeover. Try reallocating for >instance the 2M Band in a major metropolitan city, you'd have an >uproar, but the middle microwave bands, easy chicken, egg. >Eric >AF6EP

11 years, 5 months

Re: [44net] hardware vs. software

by Michael E. Fox - N6MEF

Actually, Linux on x86 hardware is just as much of a "hardware-based" solution as any proprietary OS on proprietary hardware is. In fact, Linux on x86 easily outperforms most proprietary hardware solutions up to and beyond the Cisco 7x00 range, especially with the current Intel architecture systems. Vyatta (now part of Brocade) and others have proven that over and over for the last several years. I hope we can establish something that's vendor neutral, rather than any type of single vendor lock-in. Michael N6MEF ---- In the performance class we are operating in, "hardware based" is not really required. A suitable box (processor and ethernet interfaces) and software (e.g. Linux plus some usermode tools) can do the same thing.

11 years, 5 months

Re: [44net] 44Net Digest, Vol 2, Issue 84

by Rob Janssen

>Again I ask why are the higher bands not as attractive? Readily available >COTS Gear is available for 900Mhz, 2.4GHz, 3.4Ghz, 5.7Ghz, 10Ghz, & 24Ghz. >We ought to be looking to fill 5.7, 10, & 24 to the point that we can show >value in being there. it is our non use of these bands that makes them >easy targets for reallocation and takeover. Try reallocating for instance >the 2M Band in a major metropolitan city, you'd have an uproar, but the >middle microwave bands, easy chicken, egg. >Eric >AF6EP It may be different in the US, but here "an uproar" (if any) is not going to determine how bands are re-allocated. We have constructive discussion with the license authority, but in the end we are not the ones that decide. VHF/UHF band popularity has gone down anyway, because of license class changes. Until a decade ago, there was a separate "no code" license class that only allowed operation on VHF/UHF, and a "novice" class that allowed a couple of sub-bands and lower power. Then the code requirement was dropped for everyone, so now "no code" licensees (like me) can operate on all HF bands. "novice" class were given access to most of the HF bands as well. The result was that many active amateurs who always wanted to be on HF but were restrained by the code or exam level requirements now went there, and most DX activity the VHF/UHF bands vanished. There now are only repeaters (mostly silent) and a couple of local channels with very little activity. Tuning over the 2M band you may hear 2 or 3 QSOs. This weekend there was a contest but I only heard a German and a UK station, while a decade ago the SSB segment would be filled with activity. As it is now, there are not enough active hams here to setup and sustain something as involved as a data network. We had one in the past, but interest dropped with the availability of internet for everyone. Sure one could experiment with a link to a friend just for fun, but that is no significant band use. Unattended operation is more of a problem as well. We now need a special permit for anything that transmits beyond of the direct control of the operator. Presence of the operator while the gear is operating is no longer sufficient. Such special permits are given only for fixed frequencies and only in certain bands, and they also cost money. Rob PE1CHL

11 years, 5 months

Re: [44net] a common vendor neutral hardware/software stack for 44net. - was Re: hardware vs. software

by kb9mwr＠gmail.com

I was thinking the same thing. If it's a data transmission then yes obviously the bandwidth rules apply. If it's an image transmission then a different set of rules apply. If its a spread spectrum transmission then 97.311 applies. The problem is defining what you are transmitting. http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/70cm-ATV-HSMM.html As for chewing the the band. You really have to look at it on a case by case basis, geographically. Where I live, 70cm is pretty dead, so a 5 MHz wide signal isn't a big deal. 15 years ago a guy was playing with analog ATV and that really did rip up the band, as it had no real filtering, and at the time the band was active. >97.307 doesn't apply to FHSS or DSSS. The applicable section is >97.311. Anyway this isn't the place to discuss rules in my opinion. However if we keep connecting slow speed conventional radios to the amprnet, then it will continue to be what is has for the last 20+ years. I am glad to see some people thinking out of the box, and exploring different technologies. Getting back on topic, I read there was a recent presentation titled "Providing authenticated amateur radio services on the Internet", is there a paper or video available for those of us who didn't attend?

11 years, 5 months

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

44net