Don, my response is in-line below

On 06/08/2012 05:45 AM, Don Fanning wrote:

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 3:15 AM, Bjorn Pehrson <bpehrson@kth.se> wrote:

if you allow external peering anywhere, the need for tunneling to the one and only border router at UCSD to go to Internet disappears since each subnet can peer with any other local network, even at a local Internet Exchange Point, and get transit to Internet locally. This means that a specific subnet will not depend on the global Internet connectivity to get to a local destination outside AMPRnet. The idea is to keep local traffic local.

Actually, the idea is to keep the traffic routed and flowing. You don't need TCP/IP if you want to keep it local.

I obviously did not meant link level-local. Call it regional then. What I meant was that the idea is not to have to go around the world to one peering point and then tunnel back through a fragmented AMPRnet if that limits the application you would like to explore.

We can use dedicated terrestrial wireless links at different amateur frequencies, amateur satellites or maybe even some dedicated wired stretches (god forbid :-) if nothing else is available. On stretches where we by no means can come up with a dedicated link, we can still tunnel.... The internal intradomain routing can be set up statically or using an intradomain routing protocol such as OSPF in each AMPRnet island and, if needed, export routes between islands using iBGP as opposed to the eBGP functionality used in Interdomain routing.

I don't see this happening for long haul at all with the hobby in it's current state. The usable bandwidth we have is all short range. The long haul frequencies are heavily clogged and QRM'ed. We don't have high apogee/geosynchronous satellites that have the capability to transport megabits of traffic.

There are Ham satellites, so why not long haul ham fiber? I have access to free capacity up to 1Gbps for strictly non-commercial use between Sweden and Latvia if anyone would be interested.

The reality is that it is cheaper and faster to use commercial networks for the long haul.

If you want commercial solutions, why use the 44/8 space? What I oppose is making 44/8 commercial since the risk is that the space is lost.

With the economy the way it is, there is no change in sight. P3E has been indefinitely been shelved and it's based on something 20 years old already. The cost of getting good repeater space is rising as the proliferation of mobile devices climb. I see the reboot of amateur packet being thicker locally with narrow corridors connecting cities. But that takes time and money. In lieu of that, there is the Internet. Hence why I don't necessarily agree with your idea of "44net has to only be routed by amateur radio operations". It's not financially feasible.

No Bucks... No Buck Rogers.

But why not use Internet then if it is just a money-problem.?