Re: [44net] OpenVPN

Everybody overeacts... Some want an exclusive tunnelling environment, probably because they don't know what changes are implied and they fear that their long established environment and their routine will change. Others again sense any oposition to change as an attack on their freedom instead of an oportunity of constructive ideas exchange. So in short. IMHO: - carving out a part of the 44 address space and routing it directly has NO impact on the tunnel part since those hosts will not listed in amprgw's routes and encap files. - those "independent" hosts are reacheable via the default internet route of your system, without any additional change, like any other host on the internet. - the only thing you have to take care of is not to have a route for 44.0.0.0/8 via amprgw (which doesn't work anyway, even if it's set that way in the munge script). So fear not! It will still work. 73s de Marius, YO2LOJ -----Original Message----- From: 44net-bounces+marius=yo2loj.ro(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu [mailto:44net-bounces+marius=yo2loj.ro@hamradio.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Ralph Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2012 19:25 To: kd4yal(a)tampabay.rr.com; 'AMPRNet working group' Subject: Re: [44net] OpenVPN There is no appeasing needed because there is no group demanding tunnels go away. The idea is that 44net is not J U S T for tunnels anymore. Did you not understand that? Why do you guys act like someone is trying to kidnap your mama?