On 7/28/21 12:57 PM, g4ugm via 44Net wrote:
Fellow Hams,
I don't see how this helps amateurs with ISP provided routers. All the ones I have encountered supply a single gateway via DHCP and do not permit additional routing options. So anything on the routers ring fenced LAN will route any "routable" packet, and all packets starting 44.x.x.x are routable to the ISPs router. So if you start splitting the 44 range then you are you going to have to manually add routing entries to each device on your network?
Surely routing should be done in a router not spread round individual devices?
If you want to get involved in networking you should get a decent router.
I agree it is a "solution without underlying real problem". It is likely coming from the German HAMNET who have always operated like an intranet with some NAT routing via local users on their ISP-provided home router. However, it should not be an issue when a suitable router is present in the network, and when e.g. radio link equipment from MikroTik is used that already does contain a suitable router that can do the job perfectly, and setup a VPN "via" the ISP router to the new AMPRnet backbone.
I really think that "we should accomodate static routes" is a very weak reason for the proposed changes. We should move away from static routes, if anything.
Rob