28 Jul
2021
28 Jul
'21
8:59 a.m.
Thanks again for the message Rob! As always, reply below :)
On 28 Jul 2021, at 13:18, Rob PE1CHL via 44Net
<44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> wrote:
On 7/28/21 12:57 PM, g4ugm via 44Net wrote:
As a network engineer I would agree that static routes are not ideal and you should avoid
them, and that you should use a BGP-capable router as it solves all these problems.
But as a TAC member, I have to represent the entire amateur radio community, and I see
that people still have to or prefer or want to use this approach. It limits me
technically, sure, but I understand why that’s important. And I will support it fully. I
prefer to live in a network of two use cases with many people people that can easily join
than one network where only a few people can be there.
Just look at how much more valuable the Internet becomes when more and more people around
the world join. It’s arguably more useful than the ARPANET ;)
After all, this is called the “Network Effect”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect>
Thanks again,
Antonis
Fellow Hams,
I don't see how this helps amateurs with ISP provided routers. All the ones I have
encountered supply a single gateway via DHCP and do not permit additional routing
options.
So anything on the routers ring fenced LAN will route any "routable" packet,
and all packets starting 44.x.x.x are routable to the ISPs router.
So if you start splitting the 44 range then you are you going to have to manually add
routing entries to each device on your network?
Surely routing should be done in a router not spread round individual devices?
If you want to get involved in networking you should get a decent router.
I agree it is a "solution without underlying real problem". It is likely
coming from the German HAMNET who have always
operated like an intranet with some NAT routing via local users on their ISP-provided
home router. However, it should not
be an issue when a suitable router is present in the network, and when e.g. radio link
equipment from MikroTik is
used that already does contain a suitable router that can do the job perfectly, and setup
a VPN "via" the ISP router
to the new AMPRnet backbone.
I really think that "we should accomodate static routes" is a very weak reason
for the proposed changes.
We should move away from static routes, if anything.