8 Jun
2012
8 Jun
'12
3:45 p.m.
On 06/08/2012 09:50 AM, Don Fanning wrote:
I agree. However the very design of the Internet is
to foster new
connections among all interconnected networks to build resiliency.
Yes, there is more than one reason to have a finer mesh.
Fearing interconnectivity with non-AMPR networks
excludes us from
taking advantage of network routes that would lower cost. Example:
If we were given free global transit over Internet2 by different
educational and scientific organizations but to do that would be to
resign to the requirements of said groups, would you decline?
No, I would definitely not decline, I would be happy to accept, as long
as it is free for non-commercial use. I actually advocated for this
solution earlier this year in this discussion. That is why I am strongly
advocating looking at the Acceptable Use Policies of the global research
and education networks, to combine them with the IARU and national ham
rule book.
, so why not long haul ham fiber?
Because laying Fiber is very, very expensive. Companies have gone out
of business doing it. There are regulatory, permits, right of way
issues... Not feasible in most places. In Europe, you can connect
whole cities easy enough but once you get outside the city into
farmland.. the distances can get long.
Well, What is expensive is the civil works involved, so you need to
share right of way and ducts/poles. I I am right now invoved in building
16 km metropolitan fibre rings in Somalia, starting with Hargeisa, using
students and faculty members of Somalian universities, members of
SomaliREN.
Don,
Fibre is not that expensive You can buy cable with six fiber cores for
less than a USD per meter.
If you only need one fibre pair. you can trade the rest in return for
right of way and ducts or a permission to use someone's poles.
Regarding active equipment you can buy 1GE SFPs at ~20 USD, multiple
SFP-port NICs and motherboards at ~300USD, . The capex of a complete
router with 6GE ports capable of routing 700 kpps at 20W (12VDC powered,
sun, wind or whatever) is less than 1kUSD.
I don't think 44/8 will ever be commercial. But
you seem to think
that by involving outside parties (profit or non-profit), the space
will all of the sudden become eaten by mega-global-evil-corporation.
There are many other companies that have their own /8 who utilize
commercial/non-commercial providers for their connectivity needs. I
don't think a single one has ever had their IP space *stolen* from them.
No, it
is not the commercial actors I am after, they are perfectly
respectable to me.
It is rather the fact that the 44/8 space is a very unique resource and
I fear that it will be hard to defend the privilege if the difference
between the 44/8 space and the rest of Internet disappears, just as the
right to use the amateur bands would disappear if we start using them
commercially.
But why not use Internet then if it is just a money-problem.?
We are right now as we converse. IRLP and Echolink are sending audio
streams to other RF repeaters over vast distances at this very moment
because there is no direct RF path between them. It's not just a
money problem, it's a feasibility problem. At some point the
cost-benefit analysis tells you to stop.
You seem to forget that both IRPL and
ECHOLINK use non-44/8 space a lot.
It is possible to do that for other services as well and restrict the
44/8-space according to ham rules. Using 44/8 is not a necessary
requirement for feasibility.