Seems to me it's the other way... With tunnel's, if one station goes down all the other gateways persist. With the BPG routed system, the gateway is another weak link in the routing chain. What happens if the BPG gateway goes down - every station down stream is isolated. I've heard there's provisions for alternate gateways - but is that being used here? The idea, that was mentioned here a few months ago, of tunnel gateways dynamically rip (or ?) announcing their existence to fellow gateways is intriguing.. 73 Bill, WA7NWP

"As far as outdoor links are concerned - why do you not use the Ubiquiti 2.4,3.3, and 5.8Ghz gear? It goes really really over long distances even without external amps, and will happily run in the ham bands." Here in the States we have secondary use of 902-928MHz for which Ubiquiti makes WiFi gear. In turn I use a pair to supply the NJ2MC D-STAR repeater with it's Internet link from one of our members homes some 2 miles away with non-LOS through the trees and over the hill (around the corner from Grandma's house). According to the built in firmware signal meter I'm getting a consistent -90db signal and am sustaining a link speed of some 6mbps - way more than enough to run our D-STAR and WA2EPI's EchoIRLP gear. I am currently playing with some 5.8 Ubiquity stuff at our local Scout Camp. The aim is to provide Internet connectivity to all the out buildings during the summer camp season. Many of the leaders take time from work to attend the camps and so at least this way they can stay in touch with the office. We have put a small dish type AP on the ham radio tower(we have a permanent shack at the camp) and aimed it along the service road into the camp. We've managed to get about a mile down the road before we had to start repeating from the last building to the smaller huts in the woods. Each building has a 2.4GHz WiFi AP connected back-to-back with the 5.8 radio so as to serve the local users. So far it works great!!! The next project will be to run VoIP to each of the buildings and down to the lake where the water activities happen. We are even toying with the idea of connecting the camp radio system to the VoIP so that the radio users can phone certain buildings. It's not really ham related but we are learning a whole lot. Mark On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Steve Wright &lt;stevewrightnz(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > (Please trim inclusions from previous messages) > _______________________________________________ > Interesting reading! > > I too would like to see a routed approach - all this clumsy tunnelling > house of cards junk is never going to be reliable. > > The overly-managed approach doesn't help either. It needs to be far > simpler to manage a /24 than what we have now. All the legal speak in that > "contract" can get binned too. > > As far as outdoor links are concerned - why do you not use the Ubiquiti > 2.4,3.3, and 5.8Ghz gear? It goes really really over long distances even > without external amps, and will happily run in the ham bands. > > Steve > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 9:00 AM, &lt;44net-request(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu&gt; wrote: > >> Send 44Net mailing list submissions to >> 44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> 44net-request(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> 44net-owner(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of 44Net digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Re: amprnet portal (Bryan Fields) >> 2. Re: amprnet portal (kb9mwr(a)gmail.com) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 18:09:57 -0500 >> From: Bryan Fields &lt;Bryan(a)bryanfields.net&gt; >> To: AMPRNet working group &lt;44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu&gt; >> Subject: Re: [44net] amprnet portal >> Message-ID: &lt;52E595C5.9090303(a)bryanfields.net&gt; >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >> >> On 1/26/14 2:20 PM, kb9mwr(a)gmail.com wrote: >> > It would be interesting to hear more about how those other BGP >> > announced chunks of 44net are using the space. >> My segment 44.98.254.0/24 is being used for one PtP data link now, and >> some >> asterisk based repeater controllers. >> I have email for kb9mci.net on it (but need to get SWIP/PTR going Brian >> ;). >> >> My intent is to fire up some of the doodle labs 23cm link cards as we get >> another repeater site and link it over on that space. As this grows over >> the >> next couple years it will be quite a high speed data network with VoIP as >> the >> primary purpose. Doing all the RF links in the ham bands is part of the >> fun. >> (anyone have a OFDM rated 20-30 watt amp for 23cm that's not $2k?) >> >> One of the pet peeves I've have is not being able to access the other AMPR >> net >> space with out tunnels. I think tunnels are just an ugly hack IMO. I'd >> like >> to see us transition into more of a regionally routed network, rather than >> the >> few BGP nets and UCSD gateway. Well aware of how much time this would take >> I'm not ready to write up a proposal just yet (ampRFC?). >> >> If anyone wants a subnet I'd be happy to route it to you, as I'm not using >> the >> whole /24 and won't be for some time. Global routing policies being what >> they >> are, a /24 is the smallest subnet you can announce. >> >> My interest lies in high speed networks, and see little to no value in 9600 >> baud IP networks in 2014 :) >> >> 73's >> >> -- >> Bryan Fields >> >> 727-409-1194 - Voice >> 727-214-2508 - Fax >> http://bryanfields.net >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 12:06:01 -0600 >> From: kb9mwr(a)gmail.com >> To: &quot;44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu&quot; &lt;44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu&gt; >> Subject: Re: [44net] amprnet portal >> Message-ID: >> < >> CAK4XxyT5f_UxV5CpzHRX9O0QEtUbGxD0txexZHGRDQTTdA_9yg(a)mail.gmail.com&gt; >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >> >> Brian, >> >> Interesting, thanks for sharing. >> >> Amplifiers are something I really think the ham community needs to think >> about. >> >> They exist, but like you say, but at outrageous prices. i.e.: >> >> http://www.shireeninc.com/300-500mhz-20-watts-outdoor-amplifier/ >> >> I have been reading Dubus magazine (focused on microwave), hoping to >> read more data oriented construction articles. >> >> I am much in the same line of thinking. 1200 and 9600 is really not >> worth re-deploying in 2014. The regulatory landscape needs some major >> changes so that manufactures can put something different in the hands >> of many. >> >> Steve >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 44Net mailing list >> 44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu >> http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net >> >> >> End of 44Net Digest, Vol 3, Issue 19 >> ************************************ >> > > > > -- > Meshnetworks - Rangitaiki Plains Rural Broadband Internet Providers > +64 21 040 5067 >