Dear Paul,
Am 30. Jul 2021, um 14:31:05 schrieb Paul Sladen:
...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*.
A ham on 44.0/10 on the other side would not be on it, no ?
I call on the ARDC board to disapprove this plan.
That seems quite an absolute position. :(
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