3 Aug
2021
3 Aug
'21
11:26 p.m.
I agree strongly with N8EI's suggestion 3 to base the "Get on Net44"
appliance on a Raspberry Pi. It's ubiquitous, capable, and
well-understood. Please scale it down as much as possible so that it
runs on a RPi 3 (so that there's at least one Ethernet port).
Please (for those of us mortals who don't routinely compile Linux
kernels), make the "appliance" available as an ISO image so that it
can be downloaded to an SD card and just stuck into the RPi and
booted. Then have a one pager (or even better, a small script) that
lets you "fill in the blanks" like callsign, VPN that you're trying to
connect to, etc.
Thanks,
Steve N8GNJ
On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 3:57 PM Jason McCormick via 44Net
<44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> wrote:
For the existing AMPRNet, I echo what Rob PE1CHL and others have stated on this list.
Here's my summary though:
1) The barrier to entry for the casual user who wants to connect to the Internet with
44Net space is too high and relies on outdated technology. A technology that is
NAT-friendly for IPv4 is imperative. Not only can many people not port-forward in the IPIP
protocol, they are increasingly finding themselves behind a CGN and thus are a
double-NAT'd. There needs to be a comprehensive, geographically diverse (BY NETWORK
not by country border) set of connection points that use modern, NAT-friendly technologies
such as OpenVPN and Wireguard. Maybe even L2TP. Offer ALL the options, rather than one
option. Options should not require non-standard tooling such as the quasi-RIP routing
daemon.
1A) Offer the OpenVPN, Wireguard, and L2TP endpoints on IPv6 addressing as well as IPv4
addressing. This is imperative in 2021.
2) Manual coordination by country/region should be dropped in favor of an automated
portal allocation solution, DNS delegation, etc. The volunteers do a great job but it
seems unnecessary?
3) Development of a standard "get on 44Net" appliance built on a Pi. Something
that reaches out to the solution developed for #1 and brings in the user's allocation
for experimentation. This should be a community-driven project that aims to have an EASY
setup-and-forget system that provides automatic networking harness for people who want to
experiment. Harness the power of the community who like to tinker with networking to help
those who don't want to.
Jason N8EI
--
Steve Stroh stevestroh(a)gmail.com
Editor
Zero Retries Newsletter - https://zeroretries.substack.com
-----Original Message-----
From: 44Net <44net-bounces+jason=mfamily.org(a)mailman.ampr.org> On
Behalf Of Rosy Wolfe via 44Net
Sent: Monday, August 2, 2021 4:30 PM
To: Amprnet 44 Net <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org>
Cc: Rosy Wolfe <rosy(a)ardc.net>
Subject: [44net] On Allocations, PoPs, and Proposals
Hello everyone,
I, along with the board and staff, have been reading these messages.
First of all, I want you all to know that YOU ARE HEARD. The point of having
the TAC put out a proposal was to get feedback before adoption.
It turns out that a significant part of the feedback is negative. I think that this
proposal needs more work and adjustment before we can consider
implementing it. The board and I want to see consensus on the main points
of a proposal among the major schools of thought on this mailing list. That
said, it’s important to remember that the people on this list are not the only
people using the AMRPnet. We have a complex task on our hands to reach as
many of those people as possible as we evolve proposals toward consensus.
Several board members have suggested that it's hard to find consensus on
solutions until we have a consensus on what problem(s) the solutions are
trying to solve. We have a tangle of issues like the complexity of IPIP
tunnels, to BGP routing, to address space sparseness, to low performance.
With this in mind, what problems with the AMPRnet do you think we should
be trying to solve first?
One thing we haven't communicated well before, is that we are actively
discussing budget and infrastructure for a “backbone” network of PoPs
(Points of Presence) of the 44net on various continents, to make it easier for
hams to connect to the AMPRnet with minimal effort and higher
performance. If you have ideas about how you would like to see this happen,
feel free to share here on the mailing list. I know that there’s at least one
alternative proposal on the way.
There’s obviously more discussion to be had, but for now, please rest
assured that no changes are going to be made without more input from you
and others using the AMPRnet.
I also want to thank the TAC for their work up to this point. They have
dedicated hundreds of hours to come up with this proposal. Even if its
release has cause some heated discussion, it’s critical that these discussions
happen. They will help all of us come up with the best solution for how to
most effectively organize our network for the future.
73,
Rosy
--
Rosy Wolfe - KJ7RYV
Executive Director
Amateur Radio Digital Communications (ARDC)
ampr.org
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net