/I don't suggest that you would use only our VPN server, you could /> >/connect it in addition to some other to have additional redundancy /> >/and maybe a more efficient path to western europe. /
Why would I want or need to go across the Atlantic when it's not necessary since IPIP is working fine for me.
Because we are trying to draft a new solution that would not work only for you, but also for others. You do not seem to be interested in that.
/You (or ARDC, using their money) should eastablish one or more VPN /> >/servers on the eastcoast and/or Canada, then you connect there and /> >/those servers connect back to UCSD or maybe even advertise some of /> >/the locally assigned subnets on internet BGP. /
I don't see where this would be a reasonable allocation of funds by ARDC.
Come on, it costs like $5-$10 per month per location to host such a service.
And that is only when it is paid for. Last time I asked here for volunteers to host an echolink proxy farm, there were like 10 volunteers that would do (and did) it for free. It is likely that they would add such a VPN server feature to their already existing hosted system, if we would kindly ask it to them.
If ARDC were to allocate funding I would rather see it go into research of new techologies. We as hams are not leaders anymore, we're lemmings.
That would be a complete waste of money! As is clearly shown by this entire discussion, there is nothing that hams hate more than to change something that they think is working well for them, even without considering how it works for others.
Again, it is much like the discussion about CW. Large groups of hams still believe that CW is the most efficient mode and can be received when all other modes fail. Utter bullshit, of course, but it was like that 50 years ago so it still must be true today.
/Then it will improve your connectivity to internet, and connectivity /> >/to other AMPRnet systems is the same or similar. /
How will that improve my connectivity to the internet? I can and do get around blocks by my ISP just fine - once I know what they are and I take full advantage of the 200Mbs link I have for a residential circuit.
The connectivity to internet from your 44net systems, of course! That would now go via UCSD and when you could get a local VPN server which also announces the state's network allocation on BGP, it would be faster than the trip via UCSD in many cases.
I could get another circuit with 4G backup and shell out almost $2,000/yr additional as a business circuit but why? For people on this list to try and tell me what to do with my circuit that I spend my money on? I think not thank you. That's when a ham community turns into a ham dictatorship.
It is always amazing to see people on this list toggle between "but there are single points of failure in this solution, I do not like that!" and "don't tell me to do things the way you like" after explaining them how to work around those single points of failure. Apparently they bring that up only to put a spanner in the works of any discussion about change, not because they really care about it.
Also I think your solution is way too expensive. My home internet connection (with fixed IPv4, native IPv6 /48, 100 Mbps, unlimited data, no silly filtering) costs me less than $600/year and it includes 4G backup up to 1GB/month.
Rob
Perhaps this could be a project to spend the $50M on? Deploy a network of VPN servers with regional access point thus allowing interested parties to connect to the 44net backbone?
Mark NI2O/G7LTT
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 12:08 PM Rob Janssen via 44Net < 44net@mailman.ampr.org> wrote:
/I don't suggest that you would use only our VPN server, you could />
/connect it in addition to some other to have additional redundancy /> /and maybe a more efficient path to western europe. / Why would I want or need to go across the Atlantic when it's not necessary since IPIP is working fine for me.
Because we are trying to draft a new solution that would not work only for you, but also for others. You do not seem to be interested in that.
/You (or ARDC, using their money) should eastablish one or more VPN />
/servers on the eastcoast and/or Canada, then you connect there and /> /those servers connect back to UCSD or maybe even advertise some of /> /the locally assigned subnets on internet BGP. / I don't see where this would be a reasonable allocation of funds by ARDC.
Come on, it costs like $5-$10 per month per location to host such a service.
And that is only when it is paid for. Last time I asked here for volunteers to host an echolink proxy farm, there were like 10 volunteers that would do (and did) it for free. It is likely that they would add such a VPN server feature to their already existing hosted system, if we would kindly ask it to them.
If ARDC were to allocate funding I would rather see it go into research of new techologies. We as hams are not leaders anymore, we're lemmings.
That would be a complete waste of money! As is clearly shown by this entire discussion, there is nothing that hams hate more than to change something that they think is working well for them, even without considering how it works for others.
Again, it is much like the discussion about CW. Large groups of hams still believe that CW is the most efficient mode and can be received when all other modes fail. Utter bullshit, of course, but it was like that 50 years ago so it still must be true today.
/Then it will improve your connectivity to internet, and connectivity
/> >/to other AMPRnet systems is the same or similar. /
How will that improve my connectivity to the internet? I can and do get around blocks by my ISP just fine - once I know what they are and I take full advantage of the 200Mbs link I have for a residential circuit.
The connectivity to internet from your 44net systems, of course! That would now go via UCSD and when you could get a local VPN server which also announces the state's network allocation on BGP, it would be faster than the trip via UCSD in many cases.
I could get another circuit with 4G backup and shell out almost $2,000/yr additional as a business circuit but why? For people on this list to try and tell me what to do with my circuit that I spend my money on? I think not thank you. That's when a ham community turns into a ham dictatorship.
It is always amazing to see people on this list toggle between "but there are single points of failure in this solution, I do not like that!" and "don't tell me to do things the way you like" after explaining them how to work around those single points of failure. Apparently they bring that up only to put a spanner in the works of any discussion about change, not because they really care about it.
Also I think your solution is way too expensive. My home internet connection (with fixed IPv4, native IPv6 /48, 100 Mbps, unlimited data, no silly filtering) costs me less than $600/year and it includes 4G backup up to 1GB/month.
Rob
44Net mailing list 44Net@mailman.ampr.org https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
Mark;
On Mon, 2019-07-22 at 12:49 -0400, Mark Phillips via 44Net wrote:
Perhaps this could be a project to spend the $50M on? Deploy a network of VPN servers with regional access point thus allowing interested parties to connect to the 44net backbone?
Considering the value of the remaining IPv4 space that we're allowed to lease free of charge, I would think that last thing ARDC should financially focus on is connectivity for those they're giving free leases to... however it could turn into a viable ISP type corporation if done properly.
Rob;
On Mon, 2019-07-22 at 18:08 +0200, Rob Janssen via 44Net wrote:
Because we are trying to draft a new solution that would not work only for you, but also for others. You do not seem to be interested in that.
Please quote me showing me saying I'm not interested in something new. If there's something I *could* do where I don't have to increase my cost not even $0.01/yr that's well documented I'd be quite happy to try something out. Not once did I say I'm not interested, I have however said don't scrap what's there that's working for me.
Come on, it costs like $5-$10 per month per location to host such a service.
Even this is still $5-10 per month more than I'm willing to spend. I'd rather donate for the lease of my IP space. ARDC has been most generous in allowing us all to use static IPs from their block.
And that is only when it is paid for. Last time I asked here for volunteers to host an echolink proxy farm, there were like 10 volunteers that would do (and did) it for free. It is likely that they would add such a VPN server feature to their already existing hosted system, if we would kindly ask it to them.
Again, you're in the Netherlands, I am not. You most likely use 220v a/c @50hz where we use 120v a/c at 60hz. Things are not the same here as they are where you are and doubtful in other parts of the world as well.
That would be a complete waste of money! As is clearly shown by this entire discussion, there is nothing that hams hate more than to change something that they think is working well for them, even without considering how it works for others.
Why would it be a waste of money? IPv6 is a waste of money? D-Star is a waste of money? C'mon Rob, you're a lot more intelligent than that.
Again, it is much like the discussion about CW. Large groups of hams still believe that CW is the most efficient mode and can be received when all other modes fail. Utter bullshit, of course, but it was like that 50 years ago so it still must be true today.
If you hold true to this argument than you're contradicting your previous paragraph. CW would fall under old technologies - one could even consider it the original "binary" mode. Yes there will always be people hesitant of change, that's the nature of the human beast. I've wanted to see actual drafts and test environments where something new works.
The connectivity to internet from your 44net systems, of course! That would now go via UCSD and when you could get a local VPN server which also announces the state's network allocation on BGP, it would be faster than the trip via UCSD in many cases.
Why do I need internet connectivity from 44-net systems? It's a bonus sure but I don't *need* it. My block to reach another 44-net block doesn't touch UCSD. I have no need for echolink, irlp, or anything else along those lines. My commercial IPs handle anything sensitive for me such as my asterisk server which I have quite well protected from things such as SIPVicious and other VoIP exploits. I'd never think of running anything of the sort on 44-net. Others may think otherwise and yes they'd have a need for the fastest link with less jitter possible. I myself don't as it's not within the scope of my needs assessment. Sometimes to do something just for the sake of doing is serves no purpose whatsoever.
It is always amazing to see people on this list toggle between "but there are single points of failure in this solution, I do not like that!" and "don't tell me to do things the way you like" after explaining them how to work around those single points of failure. Apparently they bring that up only to put a spanner in the works of any discussion about change, not because they really care about it.
Often we forget many factors, some which we don't necessarily physically see. No matter the solution, there will always be a very large amount of points of failure. There's nothing you can do about that. Core routers, edge routers, border routers, etc. all come into play yet are almost always discarded in the factoring of things.
Also I think your solution is way too expensive. My home internet connection (with fixed IPv4, native IPv6 /48, 100 Mbps, unlimited data, no silly filtering) costs me less than $600/year and it includes 4G backup up to 1GB/month.
Again, that's your "residential" service in the Netherlands. Mine would be a "commercial" based service in the northeast USA with the same ISP at %25 the bandwidth I get on the residential circuit.
I've used the VPN hub solution - to be more specific for me at this point and time it was slower due to location of the hub. Not by much, and app wise nothing noticable but diag tools would show about a 20ms difference for me vs IPIP. I've even considered running a VPN hub here at one point and time however the more you run, the more you invite to break your locks.
One argument against IPIP however is it's deployment in the home. Has anyone tried to simplify this? I have, and I've updated my system to reflect the 2 subnets. All you do is set your device as the DMZ of your router and run the install script which will ask for your 44-net info. It does the rest including setting up policy routing. Its on my ftp server as of now.
-
Brian -
Mark Phillips -
Rob Janssen