28 Jul
2021
28 Jul
'21
12:16 p.m.
On 28 Jul 2021, at 15:11, Rob PE1CHL via 44Net
<44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> wrote:
On 7/28/21 2:59 PM, Antonios Chariton (daknob) via 44Net wrote:
Rob, I find your last two messages disrespectful for everyone involved in this, that
sacrificed hundreds of hours of their own personal time voluntarily to serve the
community. We all applied and gave up a lot of our time to make things better. If you
can’t see that and prefer to attack us, I cannot prevent you from that, but I will not
participate any further in this.
I will refrain from responding to any future e-mails of yours until you change your
attitude.
We participate in a conversation here as adults and I do not believe that you have added
anything in this or the previous message towards the conversation, you simply tried to
offend people.
Antonis
As a network engineer I would agree that static routes are not ideal and you should avoid
them, and that you should use a BGP-capable router as it solves all these problems.
But as a TAC member, I have to represent the entire amateur radio community, and I see
that people still have to or prefer or want to use this approach.
You will probably also find people who prefer to use JNOS under MS-DOS and some script to
download static routes.
But that is no reason to still do it that way.
You seem to forget that your solution of a minor problem has a large impact on
established networks.
Sure, not networks that the people in your TAC do manage. So no need to consider their
woes.
Better yet, it presents a chance to make everyone feel how bad it was that a network had
to be renumbered because its range was sold. Good riddance.
But really, you should not waste your time on this and go back to square 1. What are our
requirements and how can we solve the issues.
And this time take a different route than "lets's split the address
space".
The fact that you do not know the discussion about the backbone is a bit embarrassing.
There was a lot of traffic on a separate mailing list 44NGN and that mailinglist was
suddenly deleted because it would be taken to the TAC and a report would come. And now a
TAC member does not even know about it.
So much has been discussed in the current TAC (according to you) and that apparently
never has even come up.
What a shame!