We don't want a tunnel. We want them sent through our Tier 1 upstream provider to our ISP, which I own and provide service to other Hams on. That is why we contacted you in the first place Brian. 44 Net is not just for tunneling Use the allocation or lose it, just like 220 (tm) -----Original Message----- As a historical note, we used IPIP tunnels because that's all there was when we got started. This was early; we were using tunnels even before a protocol ID byte value had been assigned to IPIP. VPNs hadn't been invented yet. Indeed, we've discussed using openvpn before and the response was generally favorable. It would be a great step forward for the tunneled parts of the network. - Brian te: 06/07/12

I would rephrase that to: "allocation right or loose it" Ham addresses (out of the 44/8 space) should be regarded as spectrum. You should not use it commercia On 2012-06-08 02:25, Ralph wrote:

Actually, I did not say "loose". I said "lose". But I agree that we should use it properly. It isn't up to one person to say what properly is, though The world has come a long way since you could hide a little router at a big institution and route/control the entire world. Unfortunately as you know it is not spectrum and has no FCC (or similar) protection. It is not beyond comprehension for us to be approached and asked "nicely" to use it or lose it. If I am a Ham, and have the right to use the space, and it is provided to me over Non-Amateur-Radio means (i.e. Routed to me by my ISP over wireless, fiber, tin cans and a string), then I feel that I can and will use it for what I want. It is an IP address not a radio channel. We tie up over 16 million valuable addresses. Large companies have given up address space like this, for the greater good of the Internet. But WE need to keep every one of these addresses to connect up our little BBS's with 1.2k analog modems. Or maybe the odd one-in-a-million experimenter actually might use 56k. I would encourage us to use this resource to the maximum benefit of Hams, not sit on it so we can say "look at us, rest of the Internet, I have a /8 and you don't". I feel positive that we will come to some sort of conclusion that mill mostly satisfy everyone. Maybe we should begin a list of the wants and needs of at least this group so far. I wonder what sort of attention we would get if this whole story were posted over on /. or the like. Let's try to solve this properly and quickly and with as little amount of outside "help" if possible. Ralph 44 Net is not just for tunneling Use the allocation (right) or lose it, just like 220 -----Original Message----- From: Bjorn Pehrson [mailto:bpehrson@kth.se] Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 2:32 AM To: AMPRNet working group; Ralph Subject: Re: [44net] OpenVPN I would rephrase that to "use the allocation right or loose it". Ham addresses (out of the 44/8 space) should be regarded as spectrum. You cannot use it commercially or you loose your license. Why would hams get to keep a /8 space if it is no different than other spaces? If you do not want to tunnel, arrange for the peering/transit you need. On 06/08/2012 02:25 AM, Ralph wrote: ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2178 / Virus Database: 2433/5055 - Release Date: 06/07/12

Doesn't everybody on this list have at least 2 of the new 56K data radios on order? http://nwdigitalradio.com/?page_id=24 Bill - WA7NWP

On 12-06-08 11:05 AM, Brian Kantor wrote: We had close to 20 modems in different revisions (maybe 2/3's got built & tested) here and 3 repeaters, most of which now resides in my garage ... hard to believe it was 20 years ago ! ... Niall

Why would I or anyone else for that matter use anything that slow over wireless when multi megabit radios that will link reasonably long distances can be had for $50-100ea. These radios connect via ethernet with no special software. No I don't have any 56k radios on order, I don't see them as worth the cost to salvage from the trash bin next door. Eric AF6EP On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Bill Vodall <wa7nwp(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 6/8/2012 12:00 PM, Eric Fort wrote: Two reasons: long point-to-point hops and mobile. I can see a real utility for a 56k backbone with 100+ mile hops which can easily be done on 420 with fewer complications (except in PAVE PAWS areas) than on the higher bands. Likewise, mobile service with omni antennas is practical over 20+ miles on 420. David WA6NMF

Brian In theory this sounds great! But when we see **loose cannons** on the list making threats toward the space it sometime make you wonder if we can even fully trust our brethren Hams. Jerry, KD4YAL

Ralph, Could you consider formulating your generous offer as some sort of sponsoring of a link level infrastructure for a part of AMPRnet but leave the network level involving 44/8 addresses to some sort of association of the involved hams or local ham club that negotiates a delegation with the AMPRNet root? Bjorn On 06/08/2012 05:02 PM, Ralph wrote:

Easy Restrict it to ASN's that belong to Radio Groups / Clubs individuals ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Kantor" <Brian(a)UCSD.Edu> To: "AMPRNet working group" <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 11:39 PM Subject: Re: [44net] Use of the network

Sent from my iPhone On Jun 8, 2012, at 5:16 PM, "Jim Fuller - N7VR" <n7vr(a)n7vr.org> wrote:

As Ralph said, this is not the responsibility of the transporter. As one of the stations who will be interfacing to Ralph's ISP and putting it on the air, my plan is to block encrypted traffic to the Internet as this is not allowed in the US (unless the key is published) or other system control reasons. Beyond that, it is up to the user to obey the regulations of ham radio for each country. Just as a repeater owner cannot control the content of the traffic on a repeater. In fact, in the U.S. under part 97, I would not even be held responsible for any traffic that violates the rules, unless it is my own. All that said, if I see that someone is violating the rules, I would block their traffic and have a serious talk with them. The portal I would be using is compliant with US law to trap and record traffic. If I suspect some one of breaking FCC rules I would kick them off the network. Lin N4YCI The other guy who wrote the 900 band plan for the South East US. Had the first 25mhz split 12.5 khz repeater in the South East on 900 Worked for DataRadio and a whole bunch of other stuff. On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:45 PM, Ralph <ralphlists(a)bsrg.org> wrote:

Using a tunneling protocols that are also available on current routers & built into Linux/FreeBSD distros would certainly facilitate making tunnel termination easier. For example on our Cisco routers were I would foreseeably terminate tunnels we have the following: (GRE being by far the most popular & easiest) thrt06(config-if)#tunnel mode ? aurp AURP TunnelTalk AppleTalk encapsulation cayman Cayman TunnelTalk AppleTalk encapsulation dvmrp DVMRP multicast tunnel eon EON compatible CLNS tunnel gre generic route encapsulation protocol ipip IP over IP encapsulation ipsec IPSec tunnel encapsulation iptalk Apple IPTalk encapsulation ipv6 Generic packet tunneling in IPv6 ipv6ip IPv6 over IP encapsulation nos IP over IP encapsulation (KA9Q/NOS compatible) rbscp RBSCP in IP tunnel Tim Osburn www.osburn.com 206.812.6214 W7RSZ On Fri, 8 Jun 2012, Elias V. Basse III wrote:

Here's some related info on the UHF cards: http://kb9mwr.blogspot.com/2012/01/doodle-labs-dl435-30-reports.html Fortunately Video isn't Data (sigh) and the silly bandwidth rules are different. :) Bill, WA7NWP

Ooh! Wifi on 70cm!? Sign me up! Where can I get a pair? Mini-PCI, I take it? I'm north of Line A, so I've only got 430-450, but still, it would be fun. Not a lot going on in the 70cm band around these parts. Sent from my PDP-11 On Jun 8, 2012, at 5:06 PM, "Elias V. Basse III " <kd5jfe(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Tim Osburn wrote: While this seems obvious, note that it is not sufficient to have compatability. As I wrote, Cisco seem to see tunnels as a strictly one-point-to-one-point thing, at least for protocols like ipip. So even though Cisco supports the tunnels that we use now, we cannot reasonably use a Cisco router as an endpoint because it cannot handle the large and always changing list of endpoint addresses. When we want Cisco compatability, we would use their DMVPN solution, which is a GRE multipoint tunnel combined with the NHRP protocol that manages a meshed tunnel system like we have now. We would only need one or more central systems where the amateur stations connect to, and the protocol automatically registers the public IP address of the stations and handles the setup of the meshed tunnels between all of them. No more need for encap.txt etc. In my opinion, whatever a small but vocal group is claiming, we need to support tunnels. Not everyone is in the position to announce BGP routes, and many radio amateurs have no intention to become network buffs. Rob

Many Radio Amateurs may not be in a position to become network buffs, but oh pleeze, the ones that work with this stuff are. And since this is now the 21st century, many Radio Amateurs actually have Internet connections now. They may not be in a position to hit some packet network that will give them 44 space access for whatever they plan to do, but they darn sure have an ISP. There is no appeasing needed because there is no group demanding tunnels go away. The idea is that 44net is not J U S T for tunnels anymore. Did you not understand that? Why do you guys act like someone is trying to kidnap your mama? Ralph N4NEQ Some people sed: Rob, You made a very good point by appeasing one group this may push other away. Diversity and a delicate balance is needed. Jerry, KD4YAL _________________________________________ 44Net mailing list 44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2178 / Virus Database: 2433/5060 - Release Date: 06/10/12

Marius Petrescu wrote: This is not going to work on my system, because my ISP does not allow me to spoof my IP. So if I have to send traffic from 44.x.x.x addresses, I have to tunnel it to somewhere (e.g. to amprgw) when I cannot send it in a direct tunnel to its destination. That is why I need a default rote for 44.0.0.0/8 Rob

On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 02:52:55 +0300, "Marius Petrescu" <marius(a)yo2loj.ro> wrote: If you are using NAT you don't need a 44.x.x.x address. In that case there is no difference between hiding a 44net address and a 10net address behind the NAT. The whole point of this discussion, as I understand it, is how to implement peering between AMPRNET and other autonomous systems on the net. This would allow routing of 44net addresses without need for NAT or tunneling. The difficulty lies in getting ISPs to allow "ordinary users" to maintain 44net IP addresses or networks and advertise routes from within that ISP.

I think you hit the nail on the head, Geoff. I have been using my 44-net addresses as "private" IP addresses on my local LAN for years. There is absolutely no reason why you can't do this and it simplifies an awful lot of things. IP addresses are just numbers. Private IP addresses can be anything you want them to be. And if this design can serve double duty for you, then that's even better. I had modified my own gateway software to set up a default SAFe (source address filtering) tunnel and then make the LAN smart enough (by dividing the IP address space in half) to know what part of the LAN produced 44-net traffic and what part of the LAN didn't. The LAN part that didn't produce 44-net traffic simply used its 44-net address privately (like any other private IP address) and defined its outgoing default IP route to the LAN router. The LAN part that did produce 44-net traffic simply defined its outgoing default IP routes to the IPIP gateway (instead of the LAN router). Once the outgoing 44-net traffic was at the gateway, if its destination was a non 44-net IP address, then it chose the default SAFe tunnel I had set up to a well-connected IPIP gateway somewhere else (which I managed) that was itself not source address filtered and was able to put 44-net sourced frames on its network without them being considered spoofed. This was back in the day when we could not use mirrorshades for that purpose. Now, I understand that the newer amprgw does have this capability and that is a very good thing for the community. Geoff, you are absolutely correct that as things stand now, peering could not be implemented between the traditional IPIP network and other autonomous 44-net systems on the internet, precisely because of the SAFe issue. You would otherwise continue to have to use amprgw as a destination for bouncing your 44-net sourced frames to this kind of system, and, this kind of system would still have to set up an IPIP gateway anyway just to accommodate the rest of the 44-network and it would become another IPIP-encapped destination for their 44-net address block(s) just like all of the others in the encap.txt file. No doubt the folks who want to accomplish doing this have already figured all this out because they are very smart folks, but I believe it is the idea that the possibility exists for part of our network to become isolated and not connected with the rest of it that has some people wanting to go slowly with this. This is already happening with the few subnets that are being BGP-advertised off UCSD-site, and I think the gateways community needs to be prepared to deal with the issue of increasing non-connectivity when the numbers of these autonomous systems starts increasing. If neither the traditional IPIP gateways community nor the folks who want to BGP-advertise don't care about the connectivity divide between the two, then there is probably no reason they cannot have their "slice of the pie" but that is not my decision to make. -- 73, de Barry, K2MF >> k2mf.bgs(a)gmail.com On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 12:45 AM, Geoff Joy <geoff(a)windowmeister.com> wrote:

Of course that would be the case. One of the reasons we can do this with 44-net is because of the unique nature of how its separate parts communicate with each other under the existing system. -- 73, de Barry, K2MF >> k2mf.bgs(a)gmail.com On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Heikki Hannikainen <hessu(a)hes.iki.fi>wrote;wrote:

This is addressed primarily to N4NEQ... I am really glad I don't do this anymore. 17 years was enough. The amount of bickering that is going on here now is just about more than I've ever heard in the past and I am relieved that I'm no longer involved. I realize you are probably relatively young and are a very "well-connected" individual and as such, the world doesn't quite move fast enough for you. I understand that you have an "I'm smarter than you are and either do it the way I think it should be done or get out of my way" attitude. I see this sort of thing every day now. And it seems like every 5 years or so, somebody comes along here with your intelligence and esprit de corps and tries to shake things up to make them "better" and then goes away angry when things don't quite go the way he wanted them to. A lot of 44-net and gateways management history came BEFORE you were involved here, and I think you should try and understand a little more of that history before you start insulting people for not being as network-savvy or professionally motivated as you perhaps are. The fact that some people who have been around this community longer than you have derived from your posts that what you are lobbying for may endanger the enjoyment of others (if it is "appeased") is perhaps more indicative of your approach rather than the actual merits of your ideas. If you start from a position of antagonism then people WILL be concerned and WILL resist change. There is nothing wrong with discussing new ideas, or even old(er) ones that were never fully implemented in the past. Just try and tone it down a bit. I think you will find your results will improve considerably and you'll be able to get more support for what you want to do that way. That's my contribution for today and I hope you take it in the amateur spirit that it was offered. -- 73, de Barry, K2MF >> <k2mf.bgs(a)gmail.com> On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Ralph <ralphlists(a)bsrg.org> wrote:

We have never suggested that the whole 44/8 go BGP in fact I have said many times that your project is great and have even offered to host the Atlanta LAN. Additionally we have offered to be an alternate path to the internet if that is possible. This would remove the single point of failure issue. So just to be clear we are NOT suggesting that tunneling should go away! We are even happy to support it as best we can. No part of "44net is not just for tunneling" suggests we want to hijack your whole network. As licensed hams we have just as much of a right to use 44 addresses. No more no less. Lin

Note: I very much appreciate the UCSD's hosting of the primary gateway for so many years. Sent from my PDP-11 On Jun 10, 2012, at 2:46 PM, Lin Holcomb <LHolcomb(a)clearqualitygroup.com> wrote:

I replied privately and attempted to be polite. Sent from my PDP-11 On Jun 10, 2012, at 1:41 PM, Rob Janssen <pe1chl(a)amsat.org> wrote:

On Jun 10, 2012, at 8:51 AM, Brian Kantor <Brian(a)ucsd.edu> wrote: Yes! No! Sent from my PDP-11