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@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.