Dan,
Our original intent is to use HSMM Best Practices, this would require OLSR. A 44net users would have such ease of "roaming" with the new portal.
The policies and restrictions and nay-sayers now end that vision. You woulda simply needed to change your gateway to the government's sponsor for your travel and have connection on-RF throughout (at least by coverage estimates in my county) and revert it back afterwards. I only hear peoples contrary ideas of what 44net should become hindering that RF idea. I just proposed another idea. I actually thought this was HSMM - and realized you all have other thoughts.
- KB3VWG
On Thursday, June 13, 2024 at 04:18:39 PM EDT, Dan Cross via 44net 44net@mailman.ampr.org wrote:
On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 3:55 PM Cara Salter via 44net 44net@mailman.ampr.org wrote:
On 6/13/24 14:49, lleachii--- via 44net wrote:
Dave,
I appreciate your response. But again, I still choose not to change the topic.
I think you also forgot about my infrastructure and that of my sponsor (i.e. radio towers I mentioned for actual amateur use and access).
It does indeed seem ARDC doesn't welcome amateur use, aside from these different fanciful descriptions everyone seems to have, just different from mine and others.
Nonetheless, just know in our region, regardless of DNS or IP, we'll welcome all those who have a a licence (in the US Technician Class would cover it and the bands used) and have the equipment. Just seems there's another way to connect to 44net (maybe Wireguard).
Just recall, that will be blocked here - you cannot obscure the meaning of a packet on licensed bands (I hope this is starting to make sense to some).
I think the idea behind the Wireguard VPN is to allow people to connect to AMPRGW or other gateways using a modern protocol on the non-RF links of the internet. From what I've understood and heard, the Wireguard connection would be terminated before entering 44net space.
Correct. As I understand it, the intent is for a bunch of wireguard VPNs to replace the existing IPENCAP tunnel mesh. So instead of having bidirectional tunnels between sites carrying 44net traffic, sites would instead establish VPN connections to a (hopefully?) nearby POP that then route traffic normally across the broader Internet. So for example, if one is in the northeastern US one might VPN into a NE-US POP and route through it. But the VPN infrastructure would not be used over the air (again, as I understand it).
In some respects this will be an improvement over the existing tunnel mesh: sites won't have to maintain all the routes themselves, and programs like ampr-ripd or my own 44ripd can slowly fade into obscurity. On the other hand, it will, on average, make connecting between sites marginally slower: the existing point-to-point tunnels are, in some way, optimal between sites as presumably the routing of encapsulated datagrams flows directly between endpoints (or as directly as anything routed over the Internet ever is, anyway).
A lot of the tension in this conversation seems to come, as far as I can tell, from miscommunication, and could probably be resolved with a (probably even relatively short!) video conference.
To a just slightly lesser extent, I suspect some of the issues stem from a perceived lack of transparency around the "fishbowl" style of changes implemented on AMPRNet recently. Communication around _what_ is happening is important, but equally -- if not more important -- is involving the community and communication both the _how_ and the _why_. This latter could be improved.
- Dan C. _______________________________________________ 44net mailing list -- 44net@mailman.ampr.org To unsubscribe send an email to 44net-leave@mailman.ampr.org