Hi Rob,

I agree 100%. Having two networks that really don't talk to each other but with a common address space is ridiculous.

Along the lines you mention, perhaps ARDC should consider a "grant", or perhaps a better word, RFQ from various ISP's who could set up such a thing and run it. This would eliminate all the bickering/discussion of what is the best way/protocol to do something like this as well as determining where to locate POP's around the world.

Vultr comes to mind simply because they are doing it for a number of AMPR users already. Of course, other ISP's could do it, but Vultr is the most often mentioned company.

I would think that the chosen ISP would set up one AMPR network with connectivity to all 44 network addresses and give an option to any subscriber to have his segment BGP announced or not.

73, Mark, N2MH

On 7/19/22 14:16, Rob PE1CHL via 44net wrote:

I hope that, rather sooner than later, we can offer a new connectivity option for AMPRnet that does not require tricks in your router, does not depend on a static address, works with CGNAT, etc. The objective is to use a modern standard VPN instead of IPIP (wireguard, openvpn, l2tp/ipsec or whatever) to connect to a relatively local point of presence that will handle the further routing towards other users and the internet for you, with good latency and reliability. That will end the continuous battling with the IPIP mesh that unfortunately is the reality of today. Software would run on a standard router (not the router from your ISP, more like a MikroTik or UBNT or openwrt device), or e.g. a Raspberry Pi.

We need to lower the bar for making connections.  Like you, most people want to put applications online rather than fighting with protocols that are not easy to deploy anymore.

Rob

On 7/19/22 19:48, Mark Herson, N2MH via 44net wrote:

...

Thanks to everyone who replied.

Nobody actually directly answered the question that I posed of having actually used this router and/or having some experience with it. Thus, I'll take that as a collective "no".