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@mailman.ampr.org https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net