Hi Geoff, I am in the process of revamping and reassigning ampr addresses in the Greater Los Angeles area (Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura and Santa Barbara counties) and would love to look over your paper. Thanks Don WB5EKU
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Daniel Curry daniel@danielcurry.net wrote:
Geoff, Would you mind sending a copy of your paper to the group?
K6DLC
On 2/22/2012 6:47 PM, Geoff Joy wrote:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:19:31 -0800, David Josephson WA6NMF wa6nmf@josephson.com wrote:
I am puzzled that we want to assign 44-net addresses one by one as shown in amprhosts rather than as subnets. Perhaps there is a historical reason for that. The routing table could get to be very large (we can hope!)
I think the reason we started it that way was the sparse population of addresses and the fact we coordinators didn't initially know any better coupled with the geographical/topological distribution of IP nodes where we couldn't really count on a node being in any specific location within the net. Nodes had to determine their neighbors by discovery and they were routed manually.
I didn't start subnetting until users wanted blocks of IP addresses for specific purposes, like UHF vs VHF gateways, digipeaters, or ARES/RACES. I wrote a paper on it but I don't know how widely it was distributed or how well it was received.
44Net mailing list 44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net