28 Jul
2021
28 Jul
'21
11:44 p.m.
Hi,
Everyone needs to remember that the goal is EASY ADOPTION and USE.
Second, it has to be SUPPORTED and EASY to diagnose connectivity problems.
Speaking from direct, personal experience, helping thousands of ham
operators get VoIP gear (Raspberry Pi 2/3/4 hardware) on-line, I know for
a fact that trying to accommodate the myriad of ISP supplied, cantankerous
routers could drive a person mad! I wouldn't dream of trying to go beyond
the most basic NAT rules on home-grade routers---certainly not adding
static routes nor VPNS, etc. This being said, some hams can and do pull
this off, but it's way beyond the attainable scope for most.
I've also found that small expenses (say under $100) really aren't a
significant entry barrier at all, nor is having hams flash SD cards,
configure basic networking, etc. The key is simple, complete
documentation and well tested installation procedures. Making it EASY is
the key. That doesn't mean no cost.
BTW, I think it's great these topics are being discussed.
73, David KB4FXC
On Wed, 28 Jul 2021, Antonios Chariton (daknob) via 44Net wrote:
<snip>
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
âone and onlyâ solution. This is a valid approach, but it is against
what the current TAC believes serves the community.
Antonis
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net