44net

44net@mailman.ampr.org

3194 discussions

Brian Rogers N1URO - Silent Key
by Brian Webster 09 Jan '22

09 Jan '22

It is with great sadness that I pass along the news that Brian Rogers N1URO is now a silent key. He passed on Tuesday evening January 4th, 2022. Brian was the author of the URONode packet radio software and past president of the Eastnet Amateur Radio Network (https://www.eastnetpacket.org/). He was an avid packet user and contributor to various software packages, not just his own. He was also the AmprNet coordinator for the states of MA, NH, VT, PA, MD, DE, CT, RI and ME. Professionally his was an IT consultant and ran his company Network Continuum Connecticut (https://www.nc-ct.net/). He was a mentor to many who wanted to operate packet nodes or set up an apmr.org station. He had a broad knowledge of many other node operating systems, keeping nodes of all types running at his QTH. He was a wealth of detailed knowledge and will be missed immensely. Funeral arrangements are; Friday Jan 14th 5 to 7 pm with a small service at 7 pm Ahern Funeral Home 111 Main Street Unionville, Ct https://www.ahernfuneralhome.com/ Brian Webster N2KGC - President EastNet Amateur Radio Network

13 14

Brian Rogers N1URO - Silent Key
by - - 09 Jan '22

09 Jan '22

1 0

Brian Rogers SK N1URO
by Pamela Crabtree 09 Jan '22

09 Jan '22

My condolences. May his family find comfort in the legacy he has built on this earth. R.I.P. 73 KO4ESA WRJR757

2 1

Re: [44net] 44Net Digest, Vol 11, Issue 5
by John Feist 08 Jan '22

08 Jan '22

Re: Brian Rogers N1URO - Silent Key Oh wow! He just put out a EASTNET 44 bull on the 3rd and on the 4th he was gone. Talking about walking right up to the line! Brian was a good guy and shall be missed. 73, JohnF de WQ6N >

1 0

ARDC's 2020 tax returns & audited financials
by John Gilmore 06 Jan '22

06 Jan '22

Hi 44net! Today it's 2022, but due to Covid delays and other issues, it took us until a few months ago to finish our 2020 tax returns. (Future messages will talk about our 2021 and 2022 finances.) Back in August, I wrote to 44net: > The actual situation between ARDC and the IRS rules is far more > complicated and interesting than what Pete describes. The loss of our > 501c3 status is not at risk. We are still working out the details with > our nonprofit tax lawyers. We will publish our first 990-PF (private > foundation) tax return for 2020 on our website and to the 44net when we > file it, and then we can talk with more certainty. ARDC's 2020 tax return and audit are now published! I chair the Audit Committee, which worked with our accountants and auditors to finalize these documents. The Audit Committee is, by California law, composed of people who are not paid by the org and have no financial stake in it. Most of the work of the audit and tax returns was actually done by Rosy and Bdale, our executive director and treasurer, and our accounting firm, AAFCPA.com. All of our public financial information is visible at this URL, with the 2020 info at the bottom of the page: https://www.ampr.org/about/legal/ There were no irregularities in our audit. In 2020, ARDC had a great investment year, funded a lot of worthwhile projects, improved our internal operations, and learned a few surprises about nonprofit law and accounting. 2020 was a great year for us, as it was for many steady investors. Our $109 million in investments gained $22 million, about a 20% gain, with our assets reaching $128 million. (We simply invest in the broad stock and bond markets, using exchange-traded mutual funds, while keeping multiple years' worth of cash available in case of downturns.) In 2020, we ramped up our grant-making programs, as well as reducing the volunteer board's workload by hiring Rosy, our first Executive Director since Brian Kantor died. We spent only about $450,000 in expenses like salaries, contractors, and taxes. We gave out about $3.2 million in grants. Those grants are listed on our "Awarded Grants" pages: https://www.ampr.org/grants/ https://www.ampr.org/2020-grants/ They are also listed on pages 11, 15 and 16 of the 990-PF tax return. These include more than $1 million in scholarships, half a million dollars toward improved satellite transceiver modulation, and a variety of both engineering projects and local infrastructure improvements. 2020 was the first year in which ARDC operated as a private foundation. That is an IRS category for charitable nonprofits that make most of their income in some way other than with donations from the general public. The IRS is more suspicious of private foundations than they are of public charities, since there are more opportunities for mischief when a broad cross-section of the public isn't watching. Most of what they look out for is self-serving behavior, like paying ourselves outrageous salaries, or funding things using non-taxable money that would pump up a related for-profit business. Private foundations can't give money to individuals without filing a detailed plan with the IRS. And to give money to organizations that aren't US 501c3 nonprofits, there are more controls and hoops to jump through. For example, when we funded DARC.DE, the German amateur radio club, to upgrade various parts of the European ham infrastructure, we and they had to go through a months-long paperwork exercise to prove that DARC is the German "equivalent" of a US 501c3 public charity. We have had to do a lot of consulting with lawyers and accountants to do everything properly. We want to be able to fund ham activities, education, and digital communications R&D throughout the world, not just in the United States. And to also be able to help small ham clubs that aren't organized as charitable 501c3 nonprofits. Private foundations also pay a small "excise tax" on their investment income -- about 1.39%. Yes, we're a charitable nonprofit, but Congress has figured out how to tax us anyway. For 2020, that cost us $33,730. And the biggest chunk of our $450,000 in expenses was when we accrued a deferred expense of about $277,000 for the "unrealized" investment gains that happened when the stock market went up so much. We won't have to pay that tax until we actually sell the investments that went up, but the deferred expense reminds us of what we will owe. In 2020, we failed at one IRS requirement. Luckily, the rules give us an extra year to make up for it, before we'd have to pay penalties. That is the requirement that every private foundation has to spend or give away 5% of the "fair market value" of its investable assets every year. This has to be calculated on a cash basis (not by accrual), so if a grant check was not cashed until 2021, it didn't count. This is often mis-described as a requirement that we give away 5% of our "income" or "investment returns", but actually a foundation owes it whether or not it has any income or investment returns. Even if a private foundation doesn't invest some of its assets, if they aren't directly using those assets for charitable purposes, they have to give 5% of them away annually. The whole idea is that to justify their income tax exemption, nonprofit private foundations have to actually do good in the world, spreading their wealth around, rather than just sitting pretty and hoarding their assets. This is a laudable goal, but now see how it applied to us. Since our average investment assets throughout the year were almost $117 million, our "distributable amount" was 5% of that, or about $5.8 million. We only spent or gave out about $3.2 million, so that's how we failed. That calculation is on pages 8 and 9 of our tax return. We would have done better, but we didn't realize that we would be treated as a private foundation in 2020; we thought we had another year as a public charity. Having learned that in 2021, we believe that for 2021 we have met and exceeded that 5% requirement, and we expect to reduce or eliminate our carried-over shortfall of spending from 2020. Our ability to follow the 5% rule is only easy because we are not treating our remaining IP addresses as an investment asset. Instead, we are using them directly in our charitable works (including both providing small numbers of addresses to hams, and accomplishing scientific research using the other addresses via the Network Telescope). If we did have to treat those addresses as an investment asset, we would be required to spend 5% of their value every year. Because the addresses we still have are 3x as many as what we sold off in 2019, and the value of IP addresses is rising, the IRS would require us to annually spend about 4x as much as we do today! That would deplete all of our liquid assets within a small number of years, and then require us to sell off a new 5% of our addresses every year, just to create the cash to grant out 5% of their worth every year. This is what I meant when I said back in August that our situation is "complicated and interesting". It's a bit like the "use it or lose it" nature of ham frequency band allocations. If we really didn't use the IP addresses for charitable purposes, then we would be forced to gradually lose them. In summary, in 2020, ARDC had a great investment year, funded a lot of worthwhile projects, improved our internal operations, and learned a few surprises about nonprofit law and accounting. With what we learned in 2020, we expect to finish our 2021 audit and taxes much sooner -- in the first half of 2022. Any questions? John Gilmore, chair, ARDC Audit Committee

3 2

Carrying 10 MHz reference clock over network ? (full message)
by Toussaint OTTAVI 02 Jan '22

02 Jan '22

Hi all, (Here's my full post, one line disappeared in the previous one) I'm thinking about building a GPS-disciplined 10 MHz reference oscillator. Of course, I'd like to add some networking features to it :-) NTP server is the most obvious, and is well documented. But I'd like to be able to carry 10 MHz reference signal to various locations in the shack over network cabling. My first idea is about using existing converters for TV/SAT : - RF to Ethernet passive couplers (a F connector tied to pins 1-2 of a RJ45 connector, $1 on Chinese warehouses). - RF to fiber adapters (such as those used in FTTH/CATV). But a first look shows frequency range is 50-1000 MHz. Anyway, I do not have any idea about whether it will work or not while maintaining the reference/stability purpose of the 10 MHz signal. Any suggestions ? HNY & 73 de TK1BI

4 3

Carrying 10 MHz reference clock over network ?
by Toussaint OTTAVI 02 Jan '22

02 Jan '22

Hi all, I'm thinking about building a GPS-disciplined 10 MHz reference oscillator. Of course, I'd like to add some networking features to it :-) NTP server is the most obvious, and is well documented. But I'd like to be able to carry 10 MHz reference signal to various locations in the shack over network cabling. My first idea is about using existing converters for TV/SAT : - RF to Ethernet passive couplers (a F connector tied to pins 1-2 of a RJ45 connector, $1 on Chinese warehouses). Will it work at 10 MHz ? Anyway, I do not have any idea about whether it will work or not while maintaining the reference/stability purpose of the 10 MHz signal. Any suggestions ? HNY & 73 de TK1BI

4 4

jnos.ve2pkt.ampr.org Ip Change
by VA2OM 02 Jan '22

02 Jan '22

Good day and I wish you all and Happy New Year 2022. for the few of you still using encap.txt, I had and IP conflict and had to change the ip of jnos.ve2pkt.ampr.org from 44.135.49.29 to 44.135.49.9. -- Best 73's. ....Read you very soon...!!! Internet E-mail: ve2pkt(a)gmail.com AMPRNET E-Mail: va2om(a)jnos.ve2pkt.ampr.org Packet Address: va2om(a)ve2pkt.#trv.qc.can.noam Trois-Rivieres, Quebec, Canada 147.435 MHZ @1200Bps.......... DE: Jean, VA2OM / VE2PKT

1 0

IPIP mesh with VyOS on Vultr
by John Burwell 30 Dec '21

30 Dec '21

I am attempting to get connected from VyOS, and I seem to have several pieces in place, but I am not able to ping any hosts across any IPIP tunnels. I can ping amprgw.ucsd.edu across the public Internet. I have configured a `tun44` interface. I have ampr-ripd running, and it receives updates every five minutes. The resulting routes appear in my routing table, and if I do `ip route get` on 44-net hosts, it shows them routing through my `tun44` interface. But if I try to ping 44-net hosts or access them at all, I get timeouts. What might I be missing? My gateway public IP is 155.138.247.113. My allocated subnet is 44.31.64.1/27. I created a firewall group named ALLOW-ALL with a default rule set to 'accept' just to rule that out for troubleshooting. Tunnel interface configuration: tunnel tun44 { > address 44.31.64.1/32 > description AMPRNET > disable-link-detect > encapsulation ipip > firewall { > in { > name ALLOW-ALL > } > local { > name ALLOW-ALL > } > out { > name ALLOW-ALL > } > } > mtu 1450 > multicast enable > remote 0.0.0.0 > source-address 155.138.247.113 > } ampr-ripd startup output: root@vyos:/home/vyos# ampr-ripd -svd -i tun44 > Using metric 0 for routes. > Using TCP window 840 for routes. > Using routing table 'main' (254). > Loaded 738 entries from /var/lib/ampr-ripd/encap.txt > Max list size: 1000 entries > Detected tunnel interface address: 44.31.64.1 > Interface detected: lo, IP: 127.0.0.1 > Interface detected: eth0, IP: 155.138.247.113 > Interface detected: tunl0, IP: 0.0.0.0 > Interface detected: tun44, IP: 44.31.64.1 > Assigned tunnel interface index: 5 > Local IPs: > 127.0.0.1 > 155.138.247.113 > 44.31.64.1 > Using gateway 155.138.246.1 for direct 44net endpoints via interface eth0. > Setting routes (738). > Creating multicast RIP UDP listening socket. > Setting up multicast interface. > Waiting for RIPv2 broadcasts... > Broadcasts eventually start appearing. Before I run ampr-ripd, here's the route I get for 44.0.0.1 — over the public Internet: 44.0.0.1 via 155.138.246.1 dev eth0 src 155.138.247.113 uid 0 And I can ping 44.0.0.1 in this state. After I run ampr-ripd, here's the route to 44.0.0.1 — over the tunnel: 44.0.0.1 via 169.228.34.84 dev tun44 src 44.31.64.1 uid 1003 And I can no longer ping 44.0.0.1 — it just times out: vyos@vyos:~$ ping 44.0.0.1 interface tun44 > PING 44.0.0.1 (44.0.0.1) from 44.31.64.1 tun44: 56(84) bytes of data. > ^C > --- 44.0.0.1 ping statistics --- > 4 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 88ms This is all on VyOS 1.3 equuleus (Debian buster), hosted at Vultr. Any ideas, or other troubleshooting suggestions? Thanks very much!

1 1

Request for official clarification from ampr.net BOD
by Kevin Walsh 17 Dec '21

17 Dec '21

It would be most helpful if the amprnet BOD could post in writing an official statement regarding using common secure communications (https. TLS etc.) over the 44. IP network. This email list is used for communications regarding the use of the IP address space. I'm not asking about the use of encryption over part 97 RF radio, just the 44 network IP address space. I am not aware of any portion of the Part 97 rules that apply to the wired internet at large. Everyone has an opinion, but it's time for the amprnet Board to clarify the muddy waters around the use of the amprnet IP space and publish those rules. Please! 73, Kevin Walsh W8KHW

13 13

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

44net