Lin why don't you ake the lead fo Ga? Simply volunteer and I won't oppose. K4RJJ Ronny
Sent from a cheap lil Android Tablet
Lin Holcomb lin@n4yci.com wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________
I am still in the holding pattern while ya'll work out things, but I share Ralphs frustration. I see tunneling as a project that uses 44net not the whole 44net project. It seems to me that this has been confused by many and sent the 44net down one road. We need some highways and not 2 lane dirt roads, sorry but 1200baud or even 9600 baud is a two land dirt road compaired to 10-300 meg connections I can offer I spoke to several groups at Dayton and there are many others who would love to have use of the IP addresses Dstar, highspeed packet ect. (not tunneling all thru UCSD)
The inability to have routeabil addresses from the net back to the 44net( or the lack of desire do to the slow speeds) raises this question how is it that the current tunneling network would be different if the 44.x.x.x was replaced with a 10.x.x.x and the route point at UCSD was a 44.x.x.x ? Really what advantage does a non-routabile 44 have over a 10 with the way you are currently using the network?
From perspective I see no difference....If I cant see a difference why would ICANN? Folks this is 1/255 off all of the ipv4 addresses in the world we are talking about. This is like 220 in the 80s use it or loose it.
Lin
44Net mailing list 44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
Just to be clear. Brian has said yall are trying to work with layers....we are not talking to lawyers we are waiting on yall with a plan......still waiting.
Lin
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Ronny JJULIAN k4rjj@comcast.net wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ Lin why don't you ake the lead fo Ga? Simply volunteer and I won't oppose. K4RJJ Ronny
Sent from a cheap lil Android Tablet
Lin Holcomb lin@n4yci.com wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________
I am still in the holding pattern while ya'll work out things, but I
share
Ralphs frustration. I see tunneling as a project that uses 44net not
the
whole 44net project. It seems to me that this has been confused by many and sent the 44net down one road. We need some highways and not 2 lane dirt roads, sorry but 1200baud or even 9600 baud is a two land dirt road compaired to 10-300 meg connections I can offer I spoke to several
groups
at Dayton and there are many others who would love to have use of the IP addresses Dstar, highspeed packet ect. (not tunneling all thru UCSD)
The inability to have routeabil addresses from the net back to the 44net( or the lack of desire do to the slow speeds) raises this question how is it that the current tunneling network would be different if the 44.x.x.x was replaced with a 10.x.x.x and the route point at UCSD was a 44.x.x.x ? Really what advantage does a non-routabile 44 have over a 10 with the way you are currently using the network?
From perspective I see no difference....If I cant see a difference why would ICANN? Folks this is 1/255 off all of the ipv4 addresses in
the
world we are talking about. This is like 220 in the 80s use it or loose it.
Lin
44Net mailing list 44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
44Net mailing list 44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
Who/what is yall?....
On 06/04/2012 10:07 PM, Lin Holcomb wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________
Just to be clear. Brian has said yall are trying to work with layers....we are not talking to lawyers we are waiting on yall with a plan......still waiting. Lin
-
Bjorn Pehrson -
Lin Holcomb -
Ronny JJULIAN