On Thu, 2013-07-25 at 10:45 -0400, Bryan Fields wrote:
I have no interest in limiting myself to what some old
ignorant hams can
understand. This is one of the reasons I got out of radio for a number of
years, as it was not new or challenging due to these guys. I want to sit down
an study if I don't understand it, not gripe about it (and my angina) on FM.
Ignoring a problem doesn't solve it either. Just yesterday on the PBBS
scene someone made a comment on how the amprnet doesn't appear to be of
much use - not in those exact words but that's the impression he left in
his message. I highly disagree with him on that as the way to keep
packet in general fresh is to provide more and unique L7 to the ham
community. The most cost-effective way would be through IP based apps as
IP is common amongst almost every cpu-based platform. Not every elderly
ham is or wishes to be ignorant to our technologies either... it takes
specialized people who can relate to them in simpler terms to help them
understand. We should view such scenarios as a challenge not as a
deterrant to our progress.
We really have two discussions here. One is global
BGP peering and a 44-net
back bone, the other is the end user connecting over tunnels or dedicated
links to the backbone.
End users won't want to connect if there's nothing unique we can provide
them at the L7 level... so then all this work would achieve what goal?
The backbone should be based on standard routing
protocols and be vendor
agnostic (ie ALU/CSCO/JNPR), as I could see having a router and peering link
donated, but if we need to rack a linux box, we'll have an issue.
I don't discount any of the network discussions that have been taking
place, and many of the suggestions are viable solutions if the goal is
for us to be some sort of glorified ISP backhaul, however we don't
*need* the amprnet to do that. If we are to include something to
encourage end-user ham usage at the lowest cost possible to them, than
that's what we should be looking at. I totally agree with you that the
protocols need to be vendor agnostic.
The individual backbone POP's can interconnect
with the end users over any
method they want. (I'd say we need to support IPIP or GRE tunnels as standard
at any POP)
I see the backbone POP's serving the gateway hosts in the areas they are
in... more along the lines of a border-router. The gateway hosts should
be the edge router (so to speak) to their area.
For an end user wanting a /29 or /31 they would pick a
"local" AMPR POP, and
link in with them.
Agreed, thus making the gw host more of an amprnet edge router... but
again, of what benefit is there to the end user who may be using 2m,
70cm, or even 2.4Ghz to link into the amprnet that they can't already do
on commercial internet?
Here in Connecticut, the State Police amateur club have constructed a
TheNet based network State Wide all linked in via microwave on the
backhaul for the single purpose of providing a state-wide service just
for WL2K. They've been very successful _without_ the need of amprnet
connectivity to achieve this goal (sponsored in part by Homeland
Security).
I've been lucky enough to have the admin of this system test drive a box
I'll be configuring for them with RMS, axMail-Fax, URONode, FBB, and a
webmail interface which will be available via the amprnet... I hope to
have this project complete by autum. This would be something unique
offered at the L7 level.
We need to "sell" (for lack of a better word) the amprnet to end users.
A lack of patience with 'ignorant hams' allows us to shoot ourselves in
the foot.
Thoughts?
I'm all for the idea on creating the backhaul for a way where we can
eliminate a single-point-of-failure whether it be BGP, ISIS, OSPF, the
protocol to me is irrelivant... I would just hate to see all this work
done when we can't gain any end users. Remember, without end users, ISPs
go under!
</$0.02>
--
73 de Brian Rogers - N1URO
email: <n1uro(a)n1uro.ampr.org>
Web:
http://www.n1uro.net/
Ampr1:
http://n1uro.ampr.org/
Ampr2:
http://nos.n1uro.ampr.org
Linux Amateur Radio Services
axMail-Fax & URONode
AmprNet coordinator for:
Delaware, all New England,
and New Jersey.