28 Jul
2021
28 Jul
'21
12:12 p.m.
On 28 Jul 2021, at 15:01, Rob PE1CHL via 44Net
<44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> wrote:
On 7/28/21 2:29 PM, Paul Sladen via 44Net wrote:
Why should we only have these as minimum requirements? I bet we can create a better
network and a technical solution if we force everyone to buy $250k worth of equipment. Why
should we accommodate anything else than a Cisco with 400G Ethernet?
Again, our job is to *reduce* the barrier to entry, not to *increase* it. This is our
view. I understand that your personal opinion is to increase this barrier, prevent users
from joining, and guide them to a single “one and only” solution. This is a valid
approach, but it is against what the current TAC believes serves the community.
Antonis
On Wed, 28 Jul 2021, Rob PE1CHL via 44Net wrote:
I
have already explained it in message
<e154cb27-eb26-2097-8acf-183bf8f93695(a)pe1chl.nl>
My opinion is that when you want to offer users hassle-free access the solution is to
offer routing
capability in a backbone network so that they only have to send their traffic there.
While still
allowing advanced users to do it themselves.
Another opinion is that we should not spend effort on facilitating the use of ISP
routers.
We cannot know the capabilities of ISP routers now or within the next 5 years, and I can
already
tell you that there are ISPs that manage the router and do not allow the user to do
ANYTHING
except some minor changes like setting the WiFi password.
Minimum equipment is a dedicated device (router,computer) for AMPRnet routing with
software
sufficiently advanced to do that.
Static routes were used in 1990. On 7/28/21 2:15 PM, Antonios Chariton (daknob)
via 44Net wrote:
Please suggest some (positive) alternatives. this proposal is that of the entire TAC,
... on behalf of the TAC, as its designated Spokesperson.
this shit ...
I hope it never makes it.