22 Jul
2019
22 Jul
'19
12:13 p.m.
Rob;
On Mon, 2019-07-22 at 18:08 +0200, Rob Janssen via 44Net wrote:
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.
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. I'd
rather donate for the lease of my IP space. ARDC has been most generous
in allowing us all to use static IPs from their block.
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.
That would be a complete waste of money! As is
clearly shown by this entire
discussion, there is nothing that hams hate more than to change something
that they think is working well for them, even without considering how it
works for others.
Why would it be a waste of money? IPv6 is a waste of money? D-Star is a
waste of money? C'mon Rob, you're a lot more intelligent than that.
Again, it is much like the discussion about CW. Large
groups of hams
still believe that CW is the most efficient mode and can be received when
all other modes fail. Utter bullshit, of course, but it was like that
50 years ago so it still must be true today.
If you hold true to this argument than you're contradicting your
previous paragraph. CW would fall under old technologies - one could
even consider it the original "binary" mode. Yes there will always be
people hesitant of change, that's the nature of the human beast. I've
wanted to see actual drafts and test environments where something new
works.
The connectivity to internet from your 44net systems,
of course!
That would now go via UCSD and when you could get a local VPN server which
also announces the state's network allocation on BGP, it would be faster
than the trip via UCSD in many cases.
Why do I need internet connectivity from 44-net systems? It's a bonus
sure but I don't *need* it. My block to reach another 44-net block
doesn't touch UCSD. I have no need for echolink, irlp, or anything else
along those lines. My commercial IPs handle anything sensitive for me
such as my asterisk server which I have quite well protected from things
such as SIPVicious and other VoIP exploits. I'd never think of running
anything of the sort on 44-net. Others may think otherwise and yes
they'd have a need for the fastest link with less jitter possible. I
myself don't as it's not within the scope of my needs assessment.
Sometimes to do something just for the sake of doing is serves no
purpose whatsoever.
It is always amazing to see people on this list toggle
between "but there
are single points of failure in this solution, I do not like that!" and
"don't tell me to do things the way you like" after explaining them how to
work around those single points of failure. Apparently they bring that up
only to put a spanner in the works of any discussion about change, not
because they really care about it.
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. Core routers,
edge routers, border routers, etc. all come into play yet are almost
always discarded in the factoring of things.
Also I think your solution is way too expensive. My
home internet connection
(with fixed IPv4, native IPv6 /48, 100 Mbps, unlimited data, no silly filtering)
costs me less than $600/year and it includes 4G backup up to 1GB/month.
Again, that's your "residential" service in the Netherlands.
Mine would be a "commercial" based service in the northeast USA with the
same ISP at %25 the bandwidth I get on the residential circuit.
I've used the VPN hub solution - to be more specific for me at this
point and time it was slower due to location of the hub. Not by much,
and app wise nothing noticable but diag tools would show about a 20ms
difference for me vs IPIP. I've even considered running a VPN hub here
at one point and time however the more you run, the more you invite to
break your locks.
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.
It does the rest including setting up policy routing. Its on my ftp
server as of now.
--
If a rabbit is raised indoors, would it be an ingrown hare?
-----
73 de Brian N1URO - President of EastNet
IPv6 Certified
n1uro-dawt-ampr-dawt-org
uronode-dawt-n1uro-dawt-com