I think your xlx example is not the best for the use case of 44net addresses.
For efficient routing and high speed and low latency as required for voip systems, it is much more efficient to do a direct connection to the server on a public interface instead of doing it the 44net way unless the server sits on a BGP announced subnet.
In our current configuration, why would someone want to go client (let's say me in YO) -> ampr-gw (in the US) -> xlx server(again YO), with a 350msec turnaround, if I can do it directly, with a 4msec latency?
Yes, a 44 BGP network would do the trick, but I am certainly not willing to pay hundreds of USD per month for such an endeavor. BGP peering is not cheap and not readily available in the whole wide world unless it is not piggy backed on another preexisting AS for a select few working in the network business. And even in this case, it is of no use for the client to have a 44net address, since it will again need to go the ampr-gw route to take advantage of that IP, while masquerading to the local gateway IP would yield better results.
We should look into other things, not available or not possible on the regular internet, and voip and regular services are not it.
Marius, YO2LOJ
On 29.12.2020 22:21, Toussaint OTTAVI via 44Net wrote:
Le 29/12/2020 à 20:48, Rob Janssen via 44Net a écrit :
Such images can be made as a by-product of a new network design, but please understand that the main objective of the network changes should be that such special images should become unnecessary to get a working network connection.
I agree with you. But when I talk with some friends that are "basic" hams (ie, they are interested in radio topics, but they are not IT or network experts), I often hear the same thing : "Why on earth should I bother with AMPR addressing ? It just works fine over Internet".
In a previous discussion, I looked at the XLX hosts database, and extracted the 44.x addresses among all Internet addresses. I don't remember the exact percentage, but it was very low. Nobody is using AMPR addressing for VoIP / digital modes. And those are not users, those are sysops of repeaters and gateways (ie, people with skills above average). Percentage for users would be even lower.
-- Providing RPi images is a convenient way to make complex tools available for the masses. And it works ! There are dozens of distributions available, for various RPi clones, and for various applications. None of them do need an AMPR address to work. You just plug it on your Internet box.
Of course, the best way of doing things would be to add a router with AMPR logic inside (such as your Mikrotik, or our OpenWRT "TKBox") between the "application" and the "network". That's what a network engineer would do. But why would a basic user do that ? What additional feature will it bring ?
If we have a world-wide standardized description of an AMPRNet tunneling protocol, developers such as MW0MWZ (dev of Pi-Star) could add the tunnel into the distro, and provide a field in the GUI where the user would enter the FDQN of its preferred AMPR POP (in the same way he enters the IP of his BM Master). Of course, this would not be the best way of doing things (= a tiny router). But this would allow real plug-and play, and this would allow a lot of people to discover AMPR addressing. Doing so, I think we would gain a lot of users. And they could later move to a router-based configuration once they understand the advantages of doing it.
If we keep only the "network engineer" approach, with a dedicated router, my fear is we won't be attractive enough for the masses...
73 de TK1BI
44Net mailing list 44Net@mailman.ampr.org https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net