Re: [44net] directly routed subnets

On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Bjorn Pehrson <bpehrson(a)kth.se> wrote: I agree. However the very design of the Internet is to foster new connections among all interconnected networks to build resiliency. Fearing interconnectivity with non-AMPR networks excludes us from taking advantage of network routes that would lower cost. Example: If we were given free global transit over Internet2 by different educational and scientific organizations but to do that would be to resign to the requirements of said groups, would you decline? But none that can transfer more than 9k6 greater than 30 minutes a day. , so why not long haul ham fiber? Because laying Fiber is very, very expensive. Companies have gone out of business doing it. There are regulatory, permits, right of way issues... Not feasible in most places. In Europe, you can connect whole cities easy enough but once you get outside the city into farmland.. the distances can get long. > The reality is that it is cheaper and faster to use commercial networks > for the long haul. > If you want commercial solutions, why use the 44/8 space? What I oppose is > making 44/8 commercial since the risk is that the space is lost. I don't think 44/8 will ever be commercial. But you seem to think that by involving outside parties (profit or non-profit), the space will all of the sudden become eaten by mega-global-evil-corporation. There are many other companies that have their own /8 who utilize commercial/non-commercial providers for their connectivity needs. I don't think a single one has ever had their IP space *stolen* from them. > But why not use Internet then if it is just a money-problem.? We are right now as we converse. IRLP and Echolink are sending audio streams to other RF repeaters over vast distances at this very moment because there is no direct RF path between them. It's not just a money problem, it's a feasibility problem. At some point the cost-benefit analysis tells you to stop.