11 Oct
2014
11 Oct
'14
8:18 a.m.
I think opening up 44 net is potentially a good idea but then we run in to trouble where
RF is involved. Would we not be passing traffic that technically doesn’t fit under our
license t’s&c’s?
Andy
G0HXT
On 11 Oct 2014, at 12:44, Eric Fort <eric.fort(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> (Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
> _______________________________________________
> in that case, that opens the discussion about just who or what amprnet
> ought include and connect with. Personally I've been long inclined to have
> 44net be just like any other /8 address space and fully internet connected
> via bgp at multiple peering points, i.e. either we're part of the larger
> internet with fully routable blocks or we're not. but as of right now,
> that's not quite the case - amprnet is still largely isolated and amateur
> to amateur via static tunnels.
>
> so who and what should amprnet/44net be?
>
> eric - af6ep
>
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 4:23 AM, sp2lob <sp2lob(a)tlen.pl> wrote:
>
>> (Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
>> _______________________________________________
>> Eric.
>> You're mistaken...
>> I did NOT meant any sort of sarcasm at all!
>> I just fully agree with Jason's point of view.
>> Best regards.
>> Tom - sp2lob
>>