[44net] Re: AMPR Portal Cut-over 1 Month Later

It seems Rob explained the exact cohesive AMPRNet we conceived here - with OLSR radio towers/Access points, also connected by fiber that we're working on here. Depending on location 900 MHz, 2.4 and 5.4 GHz, non-Part 97 radio connections as applicable etc. These IPs would at minimum be in the "Maryland" range (we have other jurisdictions here willing to route to us), but we could feasibly deliver and route any IP that was assigned to our IPENCAP gateway on their behalf. Users simply need a WiFi device with a NIC on the correct band, configured with their IP. The simplest would be an OpenWrt-compatible device with OLSR on the WWAN/AdHoc interface, with their assigned 44 IP. They could then i.e. NAT/Masquerade then use LAN as any other network they've experienced previously - or perhaps they have a bigger subnet to assign clients. Our organization's assigned 44 range will be connected/announced via BGP to the same ISP of our RACES sponsor (a government ISP). They will also issue an IP on their ARIN/RIR allocation to use as an IPENCAP (IP Protocol No. 4) gateway. This design was approved by the sponsor's network manager and the ISP's Network Architect and Engineers (disclosure: I am the ISP's Systems/Network Administrator).  Our Sectional and Regional Managers reiterate breaking the 2400 baud barrier, this is our answer this far. The DNS server would then be moved from its commercial data center, into one of the sponsor's or the sponsor's ISP. This COULD make all resolution internal as Rob noted. I maintain a 1 Gbps fiber connection via my QTH ISP to that data center currently. I would then use a device at my QTH pointed at my radio tower. I should be able to request my /24 allocation be announced via my RACES Organization. I could then I-BGP with them - across my RF/mesh interface to them - also still running IPENCAP on the GW. I hope I explained my future BGP connection that would be compatible with my region's RF network. I hope two people expounding on the same topic makes clarity. 73, - LynwoodKB3VWG On Sunday, May 5, 2024 at 05:28:52 AM EDT, Rob PE1CHL via 44net <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> wrote: I am disappointed that the current system is focused on a completely different use-case than we have here (both in the Netherlands and in other European countries). I have tried my best to explain this to the people involved via a membership of the TAC, but no matter how hard I tried, I wasn't able to explain it to them. It may be because English is not my first language, I am very disappointed and depressed because of it.  Every time I brought up issues, they were not understood. It seems that the system is now completely geared towards a person who wants to personally advertise a /24 network from a datacenter server, gets a permit to use BGP on the internet, and manages his own subnet including DNS.  Fine. Any issues like "wanting to run an own DNS server" are waved away with answers like "why don't you use internet DNS resolvers like 1.1.1.1"... But that is NOT AT ALL how we are using AMPRnet! We actually have a radio network.  It uses net44 IP space. It is regionally subdivided into subnets, from where individual amateurs and also amateur projects like repeater sites get their subnets and also separate IP addresses.  They do so via a coordinator. They do not need randomly assigned addresses, they need addresses in their regional subnet, depending on what radio access point they connect. The network can operate stand-alone.  So it needs an internal DNS server that can resolve the domain names and addresses used inside the network.  It needs the DNS data for that. As an extra service, the network is also routed towards the internet, both on BGP and IPIP. But that is the entire /16 network, not all those separate subnets (many of which are too small to advertise on internet anyway). I have tried to explain the architecture to the other TAC members and Chris. But I failed.  And now we got what we have now, which does not over our needs at all. And worst, Chris is rejecting and denying all my requests to help us and add the features (or even the configuration) we need to operate our network. I am sad, disappointed and depressed.  In Chris, in the ARDC. I don't understand why people have to treat each other this way, and cannot co-operate in a friendly way where everyone can be happy doing their hobby. Rob PE1CHL On 2024-05-03 13:28, Charles J. Hargrove via 44net wrote: _______________________________________________ 44net mailing list -- 44net(a)mailman.ampr.org To unsubscribe send an email to 44net-leave(a)mailman.ampr.org