Your problem is that you want to try to talk us into believing that we have a problem with reliability, while for most of us it is clear that we first and foremost have a problem with existance. The amateur digital network is nearly dead, we are trying to revive it and make it thrive like it did in the early days, a network built and operated by hobbyists, and you are continuously trying to impress us with your knowledge about professional networks and your concerns about failure modes. Furthermore, you try to enforce your ideas by criticizing the efforts of volunteers and trying to do a coup d'etat. It does not work that way. When you have a real improvement to introduce you should demonstrate how to do it in a way compatible to what others are doing, and understanding. What I find a joke is that you are concerned about having a single point of failure, and then roll out a solution that does not work *at all* under some static circumstances. Better have a single point of failure in a network that works most of the time, than a network that never works OK. (some pure theorist may disagree with that and claim that something that never works is more reliable that something that works 99.9% of the time, but I am not in that camp) Rob