16 Aug
2021
16 Aug
'21
7:46 a.m.
Answering in line.
Lets concentrate on one aspect of this for a moment:
the big argument here and what the TAC proposal seems to address (their approach
nonwithstanding) seems to be seperating the address space used for ham to ham >only, vs
Ham to Non-Ham.
Some of it is for that,Yes.
First off, in order to be assigned addresses from the
amprnet block per the AUP do I not need to be an amateur radio licensee?
Yup! totally true
If my thinking is correct that in order to comply with
the AUP and be issued ip address space from the amprnet allocation I must first have my
amateur radio license >then should not every ip address in the amprnet blocks be by
definition acceptable to communicate with? if not why not? That covers HAM to HAM - NO
>RENUMBERING OR SPLITTING THE NETWORK REQUIRED!
That is where you are wrong. We have seen many time rogue BGP route annonce comming from
dark place in the world and the safety of the ham to ham cannot be confirmed just by
trusting the 44 net block of 44.0/09 and 44.128/10. Doing so is a false sens of security.
on the other hand, ham to general internet may have
issues with local regulatory issues and it may not. How that is handled is and should be
the choice of the local >operator of the gateway between 44net rf links and any non-rf
links.
Again that is wrong. the guy living next to you could be living an a foreing country that
have limitation on what he can receive/transmit to or it could be you that are in that
situation and he could have all the liberty in the world. . But he could be willing to
connect to your rf links system as it could be the only one available around. Now he
start doing something against your rules, you have a problem with your legislator, or you
do something against his rules, he is in problem with his legislator. How do you fix
that?
Where we have the issue is putting non acceptable
traffic over an rf link. ultimately the source of the traffic has long ago been
identified as the responsible party. by >virtue of the AUP we ought be able to trust
any address from amprnet space holding the originator of said traffic responsible, or in
the case of traffic to/from or >transiting amprnet space to another non amprnet ip
space the first station (which should have amprnet addressing on all RF interfaces) to
place the traffic onto an >amateur RF segment (part 15 or similar by country rf
segments who cares, as that's allowed)Eric
Again, that is an over simplification of the situation. Think of your rf link as a
repeater. In the USA if someone use a ham repeater wrongly the ham to whom belong the
repeater will be the one responsible toward the FCC of taking care of it. Of course they
dont think you will monitor a repeater 24/7 But as soon as you are aware of the problem
you need to take care of it. Now I hope you can understand that some if not almost
everyone that do put RF links on the air HOPE that the traffic is not enfringing any rules
on their side. But how can you provide the level of confidence that we need to not be on
bad term with your legislator? Firewall? on what side will you put them? upstream?
downstream? Now what is downstream, RF from another ham to the rf link or the inverse? In
a RF linked network there is no down/up stream there is only bi-directional communication.
If you are the end user, Firewall will do fine. after all you are the one accepting or
refusing the traffic. But if you are a node that relay traffic for a third party should
you worry?
Yes it is possible to only have route that link you to confirmed ham. In fact the IPIP
network is just that. The deamon that download the list of available route and apply it to
your router route is simply making sure you are connected to confirmed ham.
Now how can you do the same but on a better network that have less latency and higher
troughtput? You keep a looooong list of route in your router? Yeah that can be done. Where
do you get the gateway/route list? You need to download them and apply them as soon as one
change. Every guy that did a but of routing will say , yeah, no problem. But what about
the average ham? The one we want to attract to the address space?
Ok ARDC is planning on having Point of Presence(POP) around the globe. that will take care
of the end user that only want to connect as a client. VPN or orher type of link from a
single computer will do the work... Nothing to call home and chat to mom about it.
But that is not taking care of the not too savy ham that want to learn networking by using
44 net space on regular hardware that is overthe shelf (OTS) hardware. maybe some d-link
or tp-link router hacked with openWRT. Or a raspberry pi with a second usb NIC. name it.
But how will you take care of those user without giving them the fear of breaking any law
AND have a simple system to work with?
Those are the the problem the TAC is trying to "fix" with it's proposal. Not
just something about ham to ham only communication.
Hope I answered 'some' of your concern and question.
Pierre
VE2PF
AF6EP