Re: [44net] I gave a talk tonight.

That would still leave you open to someone initiating a transmission on a US amateur frequency who does not have a US amateur license. We have reciprocal operating agreements with many, but not all countries. Granted, the chances of a violation are much smaller than if you left it open to the whole Internet. I suppose you could further restrict by 44.x address block. Then no one could say that a "reasonable person could expect a violation." (Of course, when we've had interference problems around here, the FCC doesn't act. So, what the FCC says and what they do are two different things.) If traffic is limited to 44.x addresses, then I would think that the chances of this are really slim. BTW, when we had only the one Internet connection, we even routed NTP and DNS across 1200 baud RF. NTP was important since some of the other machines were on mountain tops and we didn't visit them for many months at a time. We didn't want the clocks to drift by more than a second or so because we were using the date/time in message headers for some EmComm purposes. It worked fine. But I recall we had to tune NTP to account for the lower bandwidth and longer delay. And we set up DNS so that the RF-attached machines used the Internet-attached machine as their server and the server performed the recursive searches. It worked. Michael N6MEF