15 Jan
2016
15 Jan
'16
3:35 p.m.
I agree - there is a place for temporary addresses for
mobile/portable/temporary connectivity.
Even NAT/PAT could have it's uses - not to provide service like the
current Internet providers who are stingy with addresses, but again for
mobile/portable applications. I wouldn't rule it out - and it really
can't be prevented, anyone can NAT/PAT with existing hardware - but no
one should be forced to go there for 'regular' service in the way that
home Internet connectivity has gone.
Not all devices connected to the 44 net provide services - some are just
consumers that don't need a fixed address (or may be that way when
mobile). The devices that do need a fixed address should get them.
You *can* have your cake and eat it too! :-)
- Richard, VE7CVS
On 1/15/16 1:05 PM, K7VE - John wrote:
_______________________________________________
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Rob Janssen <pe1chl(a)amsat.org> wrote:
That is what makes us different from ordinary
internet users, and using
dynamic or even translated
addresses kills all that and makes the whole AMPRnet superfluous.
Rob
I beg to differ. I agree with the NAT position, but there are definitely
cases for the use of dynamically allocated addresses.
Here is one: D-STAR data protocol encapsulates Ethernet frames inside of
D-STAR frames, in turn those can contain IP frames. If I am in a mobile,
driving down a highway and using a series of access points, then receiving
a new 44.x.x.x address via DHCP from those access points keeps me connected
for services I am using. If that DHCP also supports Dynamic DNS, then my
hostname doesn't need to change if I am offering services. E.g. I could be
jeep.k7ve.ampr.org and move from 44.24.10.1 to 44.24.100.48 to 44.24.201.12
and continue to use services as well as provide services to others.