>> I am still in the holding pattern while ya'll work out things, but I share
>> Ralphs frustration. I see tunneling as a project that uses 44net not the
>> whole 44net project. It seems to me that this has been confused by many
>> and sent the 44net down one road. We need some highways and not 2 lane
>> dirt roads, sorry but 1200baud or even 9600 baud is a two land dirt road
>> compaired to 10-300 meg connections I can offer I spoke to several groups
>> at Dayton and there are many others who would love to have use of the IP
>> addresses Dstar, highspeed packet ect. (not tunneling all thru UCSD)
>>
>
>
>> The inability to have routeabil addresses from the net back to the
>> 44net( or the lack of desire do to the slow speeds) raises this question
>> how is it that the current tunneling network would be different if the
>> 44.x.x.x was replaced with a 10.x.x.x and the route point at UCSD was a
>> 44.x.x.x ? Really what advantage does a non-routabile 44 have over a 10
>> with the way you are currently using the network?
>>
>
>
>> From perspective I see no difference....If I cant see a difference
>> why would ICANN? Folks this is 1/255 off all of the ipv4 addresses in the
>> world we are talking about. This is like 220 in the 80s use it or loose
>> it.
>>
>>
>Lin
>