Wow, "Ridiculous" "self important amateurs" "inserting themselves
in the
middle of our existing traffic". Cya!
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Michael E Fox - N6MEF <n6mef(a)mefox.org>wrote;wrote:
> (Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
> _______________________________________________
> Ridiculous. Amprgw was out for 4 plus hours some months ago. Your plan
> would put two such failure points between most end-points.
>
> A comment like that could ONLY come from someone with ZERO experience
> running production networks. The last thing we need is a bunch of self
> important amateurs with little to no succesful carrier experience and zero
> contractual obligation for performance inserting themselves in the middle
> of our existing traffic.
>
> Michael
> N6MEF
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: K7VE - John <k7ve(a)k7ve.org>
> Date:04/25/2014 4:01 PM (GMT-08:00)
> To: AMPRNet working group <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu>
> Subject: Re: [44net] What is 44net?
>
> (Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
> _______________________________________________
> Most failures are localized and temporary.
>
>
> ------------------------------
> John D. Hays
> K7VE
> PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223
> <http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>
> <http://www.facebook.com/john.d.hays>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Michael E Fox - N6MEF <n6mef(a)mefox.org
> >wrote:
>
> > (Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > >So how do you do it now? You use an IPIP tunnel (another type of
> > >VPN), nothing changes for the end user except, his tables get much
> > >smaller, she routes local 44.x.x.x traffic locally and uses an IPIP
> > >tunnel to a tier or border router.
> >
> > So you're creating multiple new single points of failure. With your
> plan,
> > I
> > can get to a few other local gateways. Anything else has to go through
> > this
> > new single point of failure locally, plus, presumably, and another single
> > point of failure near my destination. So most worldwide connectivity
> would
> > now have to traverse two single points of failure that currently don't
> > exist. This is good because ...?
> >
> > Michael
> > N6MEF
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________
> > 44Net mailing list
> > 44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
> >
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
> >
>