/Because we are
trying to draft a new solution that would not work only for /> >/you, but also for
others. You do not seem to be interested in that. /
Please quote me showing me
saying I'm not interested in something new.
If there's something I *could* do where I don't have to increase my cost
not even $0.01/yr that's well documented I'd be quite happy to try
something out. Not once did I say I'm not interested, I have however
said don't scrap what's there that's working for me.
The problem is that the new proposal will not work as smoothly and will be much
more difficult to implement when the old system is to be left in place.
That is because the new system is to be using automatic routing (with BGP or
maybe OSPF when others can convince my that would work better), while the old
system uses manual static routing managed by the portal.
>/Come on, it costs like $5-$10 per month per
location to host such a
service. /
Even this is still $5-10 per month more than I'm
willing to spend.
*you* are not supposed to be spending that money. It is to be spent by those that
deploy the VPN servers. Hopefully ARDC.
>/And that is only when it is paid for. Last time I
asked here for
volunteers /> >/to host an echolink proxy farm, there were
like 10 volunteers that would /> >/do (and did) it for free. It is likely that they
would add such a VPN /> >/server feature to their already existing hosted system, if
we would kindly /> >/ask it to them. /
Again, you're in the Netherlands, I am not. You
most likely use 220v a/c
@50hz where we use 120v a/c at 60hz. Things are not the same here as
they are where you are and doubtful in other parts of the world as well.
But NONE of those volunteers were from the Netherlands!! (they did not need to
be, because I already host such a proxy farm in the Netherlands and the call for
volunteers was to get more of them running across the world)
The spread of volunteers was not as good as it could have been, but there were
several from California, from Canada, from Australia, etc.
Probably there are not so affected by backward internet connectivity (or lack
of money) as you are. I don't know if they end up spending the $5/month for
the benefit of amateur radio or if they got their hosting for free as part of
some other deal. But they do offer the service! Voluntarily, without complaining.
Why would it be a waste of money?
I've wanted to see actual drafts and test environments where something new works.
Because I think it is a waste of money (or a waste of time) to do a lot of research
do potentially get a new product or another innovation started, for a community
that is not interested in innovation and will make up any motivation to resist it.
(including age, expense, "lack of reliability of the new system", and so on)
You very well know that a system like the proposed one is operating in many other
places, and the only proposed change is to interconnect those systems and make
more of them, to replace the old and static system with something more flexible
and more usable.
Why do I need internet connectivity from 44-net
systems? It's a bonus
sure but I don't *need* it.
Maybe you are mostly stuck in the usage scenario where AMPRnet is mostly used to
emulate the old packet radio system, e.g. for BBS forwarding, DX cluster, telnet
chat, etc. However, most new users who already know the internet want to do
other things, like WebSDR, audio and video streaming (e.g. to YouTube), running
amateur-oriented web services like a Mattermost server, etc.
Internet connectivity is a must for most of these.
Often we forget many factors, some which we don't
necessarily physically
see. No matter the solution, there will always be a very large amount of
points of failure. There's nothing you can do about that.
But you can at least try! I remember seeing the questions here about having an
IPIP gateway with more than one external address (e.g. using two different ISP
links) to have redundancy at that level. Not possible, Sir! An IPIP tunnel
endpoint has no way of seeing that the other side is down.
With the newly proposed system this function would be no problem. BGP sees
that a link is down and switches over to the alternate. Even within a second,
when you configure BFD with it.
But as long as the IPIP advocates get it their way, this will not happen.
One argument against IPIP however is it's
deployment in the home.
Has anyone tried to simplify this? I have, and I've updated my system to
reflect the 2 subnets. All you do is set your device as the DMZ of your
router and run the install script which will ask for your 44-net info.
I could deploy it to my home, but I have no need to do that. I already have a
5GHz WiFi link to our nearby (5 miles) access point so I get my AMPRnet over
radio, thank you very much. And I have a VPN as a backup in case it somehow
fails. In fact I have backup in 2 directions: when my VDSL connection fails,
I can still surf the web via my amateur radio connection. If only to check the
ISP website to see if there are any known interruptions.
And there are several other stations here with the same setup. Not only do they
have the above advantages, their systems also provide backup to the links between
the access points. When the interlink to my accesspoint fails (another radio link),
it would be automatically backed up via my own VPN and radio link. BGP does
all that. The IPIP system can't.
Rob