Oh
yes, agree.
It's
worth keeping for ham licensed use. As far as "non-profit"
dynamics, I'm more thinking if arrangements would ever need
to be made with a major network provider. That actually
speaks to the multi-homing concept. By way of background,
I'm getting into the old-school "mainframe" theory of
virtualization, and one elegance I have come to appreciate,
is how easy it is to separate network traffic. Large IT
departments use it to maintain security and vendor license
policies; that same technique can be used to segregate
"licensed" RF-derived traffic from "unlicensed" traffic.
It's a great tool, but like everything else in our precious
microcosm, it all comes down to the honesty of the ham
operators.
Regarding
the delegations (which you mentioned in a note after this
one), I like the idea -- but, enforcement of such IT
policies necessitates monitoring infrastructure (and its
back-cataloging and databasing), bandwidth to service that
monitoring, and people to run and maintain infrastructure,
etc. That's a big cost-sink for what should be trusted to
operators maintain best engineering practices. IMHO, I'm
thinking that as an ideal, every IP should be routable via a
licensed RF interface -- something on our own
HF/VHF/UHF/microwave band plan. But, that's a purist ideal
to strive for, not necessarily a practicality.
On
the other note (regarding the radio links), I've recently
become very interested in the legacy commercial microwave
networks -- they were everywhere 20 years ago, but around
here (East San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA) they
have been phased out in favor of fiber-optic technology. The
microwave technology is still very powerful, and has
advantages in portability versus land-lines. That's an
expensive prospect for an individual... but it's still out
there, within our band plan, and could be very useful as a
back-up to "Mother Bell" and an alternate way to integrate
public safety infrastructure (i.e., multiple police, fire,
and medical systems). I really like the idea of pushing to
put up and improve real RF links -- that just made my day,
right there!
DS
Jameyson
W4DSJ
I think that start charging for it is the
wrong way to go.
Why not just assume that all hams
want to maintain the network for ham radio use and not waste
it.
Until the opposite is proven, I believe that all hams would
like to see it used for the public good - advancement
of technology, public service, that sort of thing.
The requirement that the netspace hams get is used for ham
radio, not sold, nonprofit, free, etc. should be the first
paragraph in the rule set. There might be other issues to
include in an Acceptable Use Policy. This policy shpould
also include reinforcement procedures and sanctions.
There should be a section of the rule set about multihoming.
I think this is a good idea but requires some agreements,
e.g. intradomain routing (iBGP)
What else should be included?
Bjorn
On 2012-03-15 06:28, Dan Jameyson wrote:
Good
evening,
I'm
new here -- a quick introduction... Dan W4DSJ, I've been a
ham for about a year, but I do remember the days when I
"knew" the folks who ran my ISP, and they let me have a lot
of fun with my own subnet. All I needed was a route in, and
the rest of my "mini-isp" was done on salvaged equipment
running Linux and Solaris. It wouldn't push more than
30kbps, but it worked, and... and man was that fun.
If
I might jump in. Non-profit doesn’t mean you have to spend
anything. It just means there are no "equity" owners of the
corporation. Anything 44-net related could easily qualify a
public benefit corporation for 501(c)(3) status, given the
purpose of advancing public research, and the
non-remuneration built into our FCC license class. Granted,
it's been 10 years since I did any 501(c)(3) stuff, but I
doubt the qualifications have changed significantly. There's
really no limit to the amount of money that can be made,
spent, or retained, so long as it is used for the approved
purpose... a purpose which is already federally regulated.
But
wait, there's more! Has anyone proposed that 3rd party
routing service could be considered a tax-deductible
donation? It would be valued at its fair market equivalent,
and I betcha we'd only even use a fraction of what is
provisioned. And, hey, it really does support experiments in
publically beneficial infrastructure. Just a thought. :)
DS
Jameyson
W4DSJ
From:
44net-bounces+dsjameyson=dan247.com@hamradio.ucsd.edu
[mailto:44net-bounces+dsjameyson=dan247.com@hamradio.ucsd.edu]
On Behalf Of Lin Holcomb
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 8:34 PM
To: AMPRNet working group
Subject: Re: [44net] directly routed subnets
Well since I am the one that stirred the
pot on this...let me give my $0.02.
I am guessing that some sort of ownership
has been asserted by the Non-Profit Brian formed. I would
say that leasing the address ranges for some nominal cost to
offset the administrative costs of "Amateur Radio Digital
Communications". This would serve to support any necessary
hardware, software, ect required by ARDC. As a lease the
ownership remains with ARDC and could be revoked for
violating the terms of the lease. Just like an eviction as
well as a period of time. This way people who were assigned
addressed 15years ago could not assert ownership. These are
not "ham radio frequencies" so the rules are up to
the ARDC.
Just remember a non-profit does not mean
no money it just means you must spend it by the end of the
year. Like Richard Stalman says "it is free as in free
speech not free as in free beer."
Bottom line I just want to seem them used
by ham radio operators. How they are used would need to be
set in a policy.
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 6:49 PM, <k4rjj@comcast.net>
wrote:
Pretty
much impossible since it is not subject to Part 97 at
all. Only the Gents agreements that it be used for
Amateur use only. Using it for something like
HSMM-MESH is probably safe since it routes via
callsign. Not 100% but then any system is subject to
abouse.
Ronny
Julian
K4RJJ
From:
"Brian
Kantor" <Brian@ucsd.edu>
To: "AMPRNet working group" <44net@hamradio.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 6:39:16 PM
Subject: Re: [44net] directly routed subnets
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:51:43PM +0100, Bjorn
Pehrson wrote:
> Why don't you suggest the rules that you
would like to see for discussion?
Wow. That's the problem, isn't it? How to
maintain the network for ham radio
use and not waste it. I'd like to see it used for
the public good - advancement
of technology, public service, that sort of thing.
I'd like to require that the netspace hams get is
used
for ham radio, not sold, nonprofit, free, etc.
What else would we require of "clients"?
- Brian
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
--
Lin Holcomb
Office: +1 404 806 5412
Mobile: +1 404 933 1595
Fax: +1 404 348 4250
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net