Hello Don;
Hi Brian.
While that may not be the best solution (and certainly
not the only) we
need to keep in mind, a good amount of those we would serve 44/8
connectivity to are probably retired, already done what they want to do,
and don't want to fuss with networking protocols.
Completely agree. But even AX.25 has a learning curve. However, I'm
all for reducing the curve whenever possible.
Does that mean we need
to shun out our fellow hams? A 70 yr old who's looking to "enjoy" the
hobby and has the time to do such could care less about IPv4 vs 6,
OpenVPN vs L2TP, and so on.
Nope. OpenVPN is free and L2TP is the second protocol that comes
standard with every Windows Machine dating back to Win98/NT.
They're probably on a fixed income,
purchased just about all they want to purchase and really don't desire
to learn any more than they already have. Does that mean we have to
close our services down to these fellow hams, many who have already
spent time elmering others into the hobby?
That's what great about what I mentioned. Both of these are free and
shouldn't cost a single nickel more because they already have it or
can obtain it for free. Both can be setup very simply and the
documentation would only consist of maybe 2 pages of information
including screen shots.
Some comments I've heard when polling possible end
users is "if it's not
in my windows install I don't want to be bothered". That's what makes
PPTP attractive. There's web apps (since most of us run a web site)
available for end points to telnet into your system, and so on. The
security part of it is on us.
I'd agree that PPTP has a place. And if you envision your network
segment only using IP based TCP/UDP applications, then it's not an
issue. But Multicast will not work over PPTP unless additional pieces
like a IGMP proxy or other services are added which would increase
complexity to the gateway nodes. And as you say, some people in the
hobby may not want to muck with it. Heck, I'm still having difficulty
getting NET/ROM working over 44net but that's another subject. :)
Ultimately at the end of the day, what I am proposing is fairly simple
to setup even for the blinking 12:00 crowd but would allow for the
network to be agnostic in protocol or application. Again, PPTP may be
the right choice for a particular situation but for anyone setting up
a PPTP gateway, it's not that much more of a reach to include other
protocols such as L2TP or OpenVPN. On Windows RRAS machines it's
turned on by default.
The younger hams and especially those with more of a
'geek' side to them
would want to dive into the more complicated solutions... and that's
fine. From a network point of view our challenge is to try and provide
all we can to the entire amateur community while not harming the public
services we provide to the entire community. That challenge does not
reside only at the lower layers, we have to consider all layers,
methods, etc. That's what I was trying to relay in my earlier note.
As a not so young ham (has it really been 20 years since I got my
ticket?) I relish simplicity. Having been the computer elmer to my
ham elmers it's taught me that the less moving parts, the easier it is
to maintain. Certainly as one who barely remembers a time before home
computers, I definitely have seen the complex curve associated with
computing technology and tho I am a Cisco person in my day job (CCNP),
I wouldn't want to wish that upon everyone as that is the reason I get
paid the big bucks (Insert billing joke here). I don't want to add
unnecessary complexity unless it's beneficial in some way.
I agree that we need to keep the bar of entry as low as possible. I
would love to see a world where I can plug in a USB stick and be
connected to 44net even if i'm out in the woods or wherever we are
because we have the capability to make it happen through our
technology and licensing. As it sits now, I am in a island because of
exactly the reasons others have mentioned in regards to network
density - there is no one within range to peer with. And most all of
us agree that 1200/9600 bps should be left in the past where possible.
But building a new or reimagined network should also mean that we are
willing to accept new technology using what we've learned from our
experiences. As this distribution list is mainly focused on the
network itself, this has been what I have been discussing. The
applications used on the network are completely up to the user's
imagination or desire. But we should build a network that allows the
user to utilize the full capabilities of their imagination. Not just
Unicast TCP/UDP.
de Don (KL7EET)