On 28 Jul 2021, at 15:01, Rob PE1CHL via 44Net 44net@mailman.ampr.org wrote: On 7/28/21 2:29 PM, Paul Sladen via 44Net wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jul 2021, Rob PE1CHL via 44Net wrote:
On 7/28/21 2:15 PM, Antonios Chariton (daknob) via 44Net wrote:
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.
Please suggest some (positive) alternatives.
I have already explained it in message e154cb27-eb26-2097-8acf-183bf8f93695@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.
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