31 Jul
2021
31 Jul
'21
3:04 p.m.
Dear Paul,
Am 30. Jul 2021, um 14:31:05 schrieb Paul Sladen:
A ham on
44.0/10 on the other side would not be on it, no ?
Yes, and "this" is a quite
specific adjective :)
Of course, I might in the same way urge the ARDC board to vote for
a better proposal if I see one.
And of course I do not have any power to force the board to vote
in in any particular way.
73s,
Mario
--
Mario Lorenz Internet: <ml(a)vdazone.org>
...having something (44/10) routed via BGP on the
internet is "making
it _available_ to anyone without a licence". That does not mean that
the Ham operator is going to reply to anyone.
Having a route announced on the internet is advertising anyone a specific
way to reach a destination (that ham operator), which at some point
possibly involves a gateway operator or even multiple repeater
operators to use the amateur radio frequencies to forward that message.
Either of which can, and in some cases should, if not must, deny this
forwarding request if it would violate his license.
That is before the destination's ham operator even gets a
chance to reply. Said reply again is in peril of having to be rejected,
although that is somewhat less likely.
and removing traffic exchange with the remainder
(44.128)
A Ham "on" 44.128/10 would have an IP on 44.128/10, they would be
wanting to "route to" 44.128/10, but would already *be on it*. I call on the
ARDC board to disapprove this plan.
That seems quite an absolute position. :(