19 Jul
2019
19 Jul
'19
10:42 a.m.
Now that we are all going to have to dive into our router
configurations, wouldn't it be a
good time to make some changes that are long overdue?
Like getting rid of the IPIP mesh and replace it with something more
modern and supported
by off-the-shelf routers, works behind NAT, etc?
I would say setup some routers with VPN of different types around the
world, have everyone
connect to there using a suitable VPN protocol, run BGP on it to
announce the gateway subnets.
A $50 MikroTik can do those jobs, for those that still want to run a
JNOS system on MS-DOS
they can put one in front of their box and still use it. People are
already using it for IPIP mesh,
a change in topology would be only a config change for them. And other
routers mentioned
here can do it too, without having to get external programs installed on
them.
Those that want direct connection without a centralized system in the
path can simply setup
a VPN connection between them and configure the BGP peers, it will
automatically work.
There is no need to use only a single protocol in such a network, only
the peers have to agree,
so you can select from anything like L2TP/IPsec, OpenVPN, Wireguard,
just plain GRE or even IPIP,
etc etc. Just at this time I am trying to move my colocated machine
that runs as an IPIP mesh
member and I face that stupid "protocol 4 is not passed by the firewall"
problem again. Arghh!!
Also we could get that IPv6 idea going. Remember it has been discussed
many times and the
only things we still need is some agreement on how to register and
distribute the "list of AMPRnet
prefixes in IPv6 space". Again that could be done using BGP, no need to
setup yet another
registration portal with downloadable files.
Note that Daniel EA4GPZ put some ideas around IPv6 on his site:
https://destevez.net/ipv6-for-amateur-radio/
Rob
19 Jul
19 Jul
10:50 a.m.
First thought would be that BGP is too difficult for 90% of the HAM operators.
Although I do applaud the idea and do think it would be a better setup, 90% of the
operators don't know anything about routing, let alone dynamic routing protocols.
The ease of the IPIP tunnels using a modified RIP daemon that can easily be downloaded
makes the current setup so easy to deploy and get online.
Also seeing that a lot of questions coming in are from users complaining that they are not
reachable to/from the internet (when they haven't set up reverse DNS) shows that even
reading the wiki is too hard for some of them.
73,
Ruben - ON3RVH
-----Original Message-----
From: 44Net <44net-bounces+on3rvh=on3rvh.be(a)mailman.ampr.org> On Behalf Of Rob
Janssen
Sent: vrijdag 19 juli 2019 11:43
To: 44net(a)mailman.ampr.org
Subject: [44net] Time to restructure the network?
Now that we are all going to have to dive into our router configurations, wouldn't it
be a good time to make some changes that are long overdue?
Like getting rid of the IPIP mesh and replace it with something more modern and supported
by off-the-shelf routers, works behind NAT, etc?
I would say setup some routers with VPN of different types around the world, have everyone
connect to there using a suitable VPN protocol, run BGP on it to announce the gateway
subnets.
A $50 MikroTik can do those jobs, for those that still want to run a JNOS system on MS-DOS
they can put one in front of their box and still use it. People are already using it for
IPIP mesh, a change in topology would be only a config change for them. And other routers
mentioned here can do it too, without having to get external programs installed on them.
Those that want direct connection without a centralized system in the path can simply
setup a VPN connection between them and configure the BGP peers, it will automatically
work.
There is no need to use only a single protocol in such a network, only the peers have to
agree, so you can select from anything like L2TP/IPsec, OpenVPN, Wireguard, just plain GRE
or even IPIP, etc etc. Just at this time I am trying to move my colocated machine that
runs as an IPIP mesh member and I face that stupid "protocol 4 is not passed by the
firewall"
problem again. Arghh!!
Also we could get that IPv6 idea going. Remember it has been discussed many times and
the only things we still need is some agreement on how to register and distribute the
"list of AMPRnet prefixes in IPv6 space". Again that could be done using BGP,
no need to setup yet another registration portal with downloadable files.
Note that Daniel EA4GPZ put some ideas around IPv6 on his site:
https://destevez.net/ipv6-for-amateur-radio/
Rob
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
11:11 a.m.
Setting up some kind of vpn tunnel and running BGP over it is much easier then setting up
a full mesh ipip network.
Nobody asks anybody to be a big network hub.
On linux, basically it comes down to configure a virtual network interface of some kind
and add 4 lines to the quagga configuration file.
On routers, its not a bigger endeavour either.
We have all the 32bit ASs available, and a rational assignement and usage is already in
place in the DE hamnet and workig for years (42+itu_prefix+...).
And after such a reorganization, even switching to another prefix, e.g. private
addressing, would be a walk in the park.
Btw, this would be a nice first project to use some of that money...
Marius, YO2LOJ
July 19, 2019 10:50 AM, "Ruben ON3RVH" <on3rvh(a)on3rvh.be> wrote:
First thought would be that BGP is too difficult for
90% of the HAM operators.
Although I do applaud the idea and do think it would be a better setup, 90% of the
operators don't
know anything about routing, let alone dynamic routing protocols.
The ease of the IPIP tunnels using a modified RIP daemon that can easily be downloaded
makes the
current setup so easy to deploy and get online.
Also seeing that a lot of questions coming in are from users complaining that they are
not
reachable to/from the internet (when they haven't set up reverse DNS) shows that even
reading the
wiki is too hard for some of them.
73,
Ruben - ON3RVH
-----Original Message-----
From: 44Net <44net-bounces+on3rvh=on3rvh.be(a)mailman.ampr.org> On Behalf Of Rob
Janssen
Sent: vrijdag 19 juli 2019 11:43
To: 44net(a)mailman.ampr.org
Subject: [44net] Time to restructure the network?
Now that we are all going to have to dive into our router configurations, wouldn't it
be a good
time to make some changes that are long overdue?
Like getting rid of the IPIP mesh and replace it with something more modern and supported
by
off-the-shelf routers, works behind NAT, etc?
I would say setup some routers with VPN of different types around the world, have
everyone connect
to there using a suitable VPN protocol, run BGP on it to announce the gateway subnets.
A $50 MikroTik can do those jobs, for those that still want to run a JNOS system on
MS-DOS they can
put one in front of their box and still use it. People are already using it for IPIP
mesh, a
change in topology would be only a config change for them. And other routers mentioned
here can do
it too, without having to get external programs installed on them.
Those that want direct connection without a centralized system in the path can simply
setup a VPN
connection between them and configure the BGP peers, it will automatically work.
There is no need to use only a single protocol in such a network, only the peers have to
agree, so
you can select from anything like L2TP/IPsec, OpenVPN, Wireguard, just plain GRE or even
IPIP, etc
etc. Just at this time I am trying to move my colocated machine that runs as an IPIP
mesh member
and I face that stupid "protocol 4 is not passed by the firewall"
problem again. Arghh!!
Also we could get that IPv6 idea going. Remember it has been discussed many times and
the only
things we still need is some agreement on how to register and distribute the "list
of AMPRnet
prefixes in IPv6 space". Again that could be done using BGP, no need to setup yet
another
registration portal with downloadable files.
Note that Daniel EA4GPZ put some ideas around IPv6 on his site:
https://destevez.net/ipv6-for-amateur-radio
Rob
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
12:37 p.m.
I do agree that we do not need one big hub, maintaining the central - or several bgp
backbone links should be handled by ppl who know what their doing, that's a given.
But setting up Marius' script on Mikrotik is easy as pie and it configures the rest
"automagically" whereas configuring BGP on a tik, although easy for those of us
that do such things daily, is not that easy for non network-technical folks
Even installing and configuring quagga on linux and editing the configuration file is not
that easy for those who don't know a thing about networking.
It could mean a lot of work for us maintainers to help all the non network technical folks
to configure (and maintain) their routers. I for one am not shy of the work, nor do I mind
helping them, but everyone should be aware that it could fall onto them to set it up for
those that don't know how. (or can't/won't read a wiki article)
73,
Ruben - ON3RVH
-----Original Message-----
From: 44Net <44net-bounces+on3rvh=on3rvh.be(a)mailman.ampr.org> On Behalf Of
marius(a)yo2loj.ro
Sent: vrijdag 19 juli 2019 12:12
To: AMPRNet working group <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org>
Subject: Re: [44net] Time to restructure the network?
Setting up some kind of vpn tunnel and running BGP over it is much easier then setting up
a full mesh ipip network.
Nobody asks anybody to be a big network hub.
On linux, basically it comes down to configure a virtual network interface of some kind
and add 4 lines to the quagga configuration file.
On routers, its not a bigger endeavour either.
We have all the 32bit ASs available, and a rational assignement and usage is already in
place in the DE hamnet and workig for years (42+itu_prefix+...).
And after such a reorganization, even switching to another prefix, e.g. private
addressing, would be a walk in the park.
Btw, this would be a nice first project to use some of that money...
Marius, YO2LOJ
July 19, 2019 10:50 AM, "Ruben ON3RVH" <on3rvh(a)on3rvh.be> wrote:
First thought would be that BGP is too difficult for
90% of the HAM operators.
Although I do applaud the idea and do think it would be a better
setup, 90% of the operators don't know anything about routing, let alone dynamic
routing protocols.
The ease of the IPIP tunnels using a modified RIP daemon that can
easily be downloaded makes the current setup so easy to deploy and get online.
Also seeing that a lot of questions coming in are from users
complaining that they are not reachable to/from the internet (when
they haven't set up reverse DNS) shows that even reading the wiki is too hard for
some of them.
73,
Ruben - ON3RVH
-----Original Message-----
From: 44Net <44net-bounces+on3rvh=on3rvh.be(a)mailman.ampr.org> On
Behalf Of Rob Janssen
Sent: vrijdag 19 juli 2019 11:43
To: 44net(a)mailman.ampr.org
Subject: [44net] Time to restructure the network?
Now that we are all going to have to dive into our router
configurations, wouldn't it be a good time to make some changes that are long
overdue?
Like getting rid of the IPIP mesh and replace it with something more
modern and supported by off-the-shelf routers, works behind NAT, etc?
I would say setup some routers with VPN of different types around the
world, have everyone connect to there using a suitable VPN protocol, run BGP on it to
announce the gateway subnets.
A $50 MikroTik can do those jobs, for those that still want to run a
JNOS system on MS-DOS they can put one in front of their box and still
use it. People are already using it for IPIP mesh, a change in
topology would be only a config change for them. And other routers mentioned here can do
it too, without having to get external programs installed on them.
Those that want direct connection without a centralized system in the
path can simply setup a VPN connection between them and configure the BGP peers, it will
automatically work.
There is no need to use only a single protocol in such a network, only
the peers have to agree, so you can select from anything like
L2TP/IPsec, OpenVPN, Wireguard, just plain GRE or even IPIP, etc etc.
Just at this time I am trying to move my colocated machine that runs as an IPIP mesh
member and I face that stupid "protocol 4 is not passed by the firewall"
problem again. Arghh!!
Also we could get that IPv6 idea going. Remember it has been discussed many times and
the only
things we still need is some agreement on how to register and
distribute the "list of AMPRnet prefixes in IPv6 space". Again that
could be done using BGP, no need to setup yet another registration portal with
downloadable files.
Note that Daniel EA4GPZ put some ideas around IPv6 on his site:
https://destevez.net/ipv6-for-amateur-radio
Rob
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
1:13 p.m.
On Fri, 19 Jul 2019, Ruben ON3RVH wrote:
The ease of the IPIP tunnels using a modified RIP
daemon that can
easily be downloaded makes the current setup so easy to deploy and get
online. Also seeing that a lot of questions coming in are from users
complaining that they are not reachable to/from the internet (when
they haven't set up reverse DNS) shows that even reading the wiki is
too hard for some of them.
The difficulty is that one has to remind firewall vendors and
open-source developers that protocols like IPIP even exist and just how
large a community of potential users they are eliminating from using
their software by simply not making an option available on a drop-down
box (e.g. pfSense). Another way our options are limited is by not
loading a kernel module in certain environments or not distributing a
kernel module that supports the technology.
There is no way to "port forward" GRE or IPIP. It terminates on the
edge, or it doesn't. That can be complex in today's provider networks
thanks to the use of PPPoE, 802.1x, or Customer Premises Equipment (CPE)
which heavily favors TCP and UDP communications into or out of a
designated "DMZ" and throws away everything else. On the other hand,
it's still possible to setup a VPN to a remote host and interface with
the IPIP mesh there. It's not idea, but it's a solution. As long as all
the nearby sites have a route over VPN, it can work. By tuning the VPN
parameters, latency can be kept down.
This may not be the time to re-engineer everything, but start the ideas
now and something should be possible to start in six months.
--
Kris Kirby, KE4AHR
Disinformation Architect, Systems Mangler, & Network Mismanager
20 Jul
20 Jul
6:30 p.m.
I'm a Mikrotik certified consultant and would be willing to help anyone out
(for free) with BGP, VPNs, etc like I'm currently using. I could also build
a wiki page somewhere.
On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 5:51 AM Ruben ON3RVH <on3rvh(a)on3rvh.be> wrote:
First thought would be that BGP is too difficult for
90% of the HAM
operators.
Although I do applaud the idea and do think it would be a better setup,
90% of the operators don't know anything about routing, let alone dynamic
routing protocols.
The ease of the IPIP tunnels using a modified RIP daemon that can easily
be downloaded makes the current setup so easy to deploy and get online.
Also seeing that a lot of questions coming in are from users complaining
that they are not reachable to/from the internet (when they haven't set up
reverse DNS) shows that even reading the wiki is too hard for some of them.
73,
Ruben - ON3RVH
-----Original Message-----
From: 44Net <44net-bounces+on3rvh=on3rvh.be(a)mailman.ampr.org> On Behalf
Of Rob Janssen
Sent: vrijdag 19 juli 2019 11:43
To: 44net(a)mailman.ampr.org
Subject: [44net] Time to restructure the network?
Now that we are all going to have to dive into our router configurations,
wouldn't it be a good time to make some changes that are long overdue?
Like getting rid of the IPIP mesh and replace it with something more
modern and supported by off-the-shelf routers, works behind NAT, etc?
I would say setup some routers with VPN of different types around the
world, have everyone connect to there using a suitable VPN protocol, run
BGP on it to announce the gateway subnets.
A $50 MikroTik can do those jobs, for those that still want to run a JNOS
system on MS-DOS they can put one in front of their box and still use it.
People are already using it for IPIP mesh, a change in topology would be
only a config change for them. And other routers mentioned here can do it
too, without having to get external programs installed on them.
Those that want direct connection without a centralized system in the path
can simply setup a VPN connection between them and configure the BGP peers,
it will automatically work.
There is no need to use only a single protocol in such a network, only the
peers have to agree, so you can select from anything like L2TP/IPsec,
OpenVPN, Wireguard, just plain GRE or even IPIP, etc etc. Just at this
time I am trying to move my colocated machine that runs as an IPIP mesh
member and I face that stupid "protocol 4 is not passed by the firewall"
problem again. Arghh!!
Also we could get that IPv6 idea going. Remember it has been discussed
many times and the only things we still need is some agreement on how to
register and distribute the "list of AMPRnet prefixes in IPv6 space".
Again that could be done using BGP, no need to setup yet another
registration portal with downloadable files.
Note that Daniel EA4GPZ put some ideas around IPv6 on his site:
https://destevez.net/ipv6-for-amateur-radio/
Rob
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
12:57 a.m.
Now that we are all going to have to dive into our
router
configurations, wouldn't it be a
good time to make some changes that are long overdue?
Like getting rid of the IPIP mesh and replace it with
something more
modern and supported
by off-the-shelf routers, works behind NAT, etc?
As long as it doesn’t create failure points!
This event is the perfect example. The entire worldwide 44.x community didn't even
know there was a problem for about 8 hours! And, once reported, everyone was more
interesting in griping about the address sale than fixing the DNS problem. In fact, no
one even knew how to/who could fix the problem because the 44.in-addr.arpa server is
handled by a very select few (one?).
The IPIP mesh may be non-standard, but it is distributed, without any single point of
failure. To get between two points, the two gateways have to have IP connectivity to each
other. That's it. The two end-points can troubleshoot directly.
But every proposal I've seen on this list involves adding at least two other ham
points of failure. For example, I would presumably connect to some other ham's BGP
node and the other end of the connection would do the same. Why? Do these hubs have 24x7
support, like my ISP does? Do the responsible people ever go to work, go out to eat, get
sick, go on vacation, ...? Are they going to be available to troubleshoot on my schedule?
What if they just don't feel like it today?
The six gateway machines in our network don't even use the single-point-of-failure
44-style RIP server. We download the gateway/route list every 6 hours (suitable for our
needs). If FTP fails, file doesn't exist, file has zero size, number of changes seems
unreasonable, etc., (all of which have happened over the years), we send an alert to our
folks and continue on with the previous list of routes and try again later. As a result,
since 2009, we have had exactly zero outages!
So: Standard protocols? Absolutely! If it doesn't add failure points between
peers/gateways, I'm for it!
As you say, we'll need some reliable way to distribute the peer info. Perhaps a few
mirrored servers spread around the world, enabling us to try another one if our closest
server fails. But for peer info, not for forwarding. Requiring some artificial overlay
routing hierarchy or forwarding hop between end-points smells like taking a step back to
the 80s and hop-by-hop BBS forwarding.
Michael, N6MEF
21 Jul
21 Jul
9:39 a.m.
On 20/07/19 09:57, Michael Fox - N6MEF wrote:
The IPIP mesh may be non-standard, but it is
distributed, without any single point of failure. To get between two points, the two
gateways have to have IP connectivity to each other. That's it. The two end-points
can troubleshoot directly.
The other thing I like about the IPIP mesh is that the
routing is as
good as it can possibly be, because each endpoint is connected to each
other. This is an issue that is critically important for us in VK.
I've had to implement my own link between my IPIP and BGP connected
subnets to improve both reliability and latency of interconnectivity
between them. I'm not using IPIP on the BGP connected subnet, because
it's one of the 44.190.8/24 subnets, and there were objects from some
parts to it being in the mesh. So instead, I made my own private
arrangements to bridge them.
Being forced to route through some other host (especially if it's on the
other side of the world) would seriously degrade the performance of the
network as seen from here, because physics (that pesky Relativity)
limits RTTs to around 200 mS at best. The round trip via UCSD was 400mS
at best, if it worked at all.
--
73 de Tony VK3JED/VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com
20 Jul
20 Jul
8:28 p.m.
On 7/19/19 2:42 AM, Rob Janssen wrote:
Now that we are all going to have to dive into our
router
configurations, wouldn't it be a
good time to make some changes that are long overdue?
Like getting rid of the IPIP mesh and replace it with something more
modern and supported
by off-the-shelf routers, works behind NAT, etc?
I would say setup some routers with VPN of different types around the
world, have everyone
connect to there using a suitable VPN protocol, run BGP on it to
announce the gateway subnets.
Take a look at how DN42 is doing something like this. https://dn42.net/home
They even offer it as a testbed to learn routing protocols like BGP
wihtout the "fear" of having someone yell at you for a mistake.
KG7QIN
-Stacy
21 Jul
21 Jul
7:32 a.m.
New subject: Time to restructure the network ? For what ? Being sold like old socks ?
Hi Rob,
Le 19/07/2019 à 11:42, Rob Janssen a écrit :
Now that we are all going to have to dive into our
router
configurations, wouldn't it be a
good time to make some changes that are long overdue?
Of course, testing new things, trying to "modernize" our old network
topology, and start thinking about IPv6, is probably the most clever
thing we can do.
That's what we're trying to do (quite modestly) here, in Corsica. We are
using Plug and Play TKBoxes, with OpenWRT, OpenVPN and internal OSPF
routing. Doing NAT traversal is easy for outbound, but it does not work
for inbound connections. That's why our setup relies on a central
gateway, which manages all the in/out communications. It's less
fault-tolerant than a full-mesh. But for now, I do not see how to do a
full mesh with automatic NAT traversal. This topology works fine for us,
because we're an island with two big cities. So, a dual-star network,
with two redundant entry points, seems quite natural. But this may not
apply everywhere. Maybe it's possible to create some "regional" or
"country-wide" platforms ? Before, we had a full-mesh and a gateway in
San Diego. Maybe we can have more distributed platforms and gateways
over the world... Communications from/to Internet are mandatory
nowadays; we can't just ignore them and continue working in "closed"
networks.
There are a lot of technical things to investigate and try here...
*
**But my main question is WHY ? Why should we continue spending our time
and our money, with the risk of being sold as old socks ?*
If I clearly understand, and agree, with the sale of 1/4 of the AMPRNet
address range, I don't really understand why we were not informed
before, which would have allowed everybody to contribute to the debate,
and to be involved in the final decision. I'm from a tiny country who
initiated what is probably the first democratic constitution of the
modern era in 1755, and it's known that it inspired the United States
constitution. So, this kind of "monarchical" decision makes me very
disappointed and sad.
*
**More threatening : I discussed on Facebook "Ham Radio Operators" group
with a guy (Bill HORNE) which clearly advocates for the sale of the full
AMPRNet range, and which even tries to give arguments for that !*
That makes me say : What am I doing here, and shouldn't I switch to
something else before I'm sold to Amazon or Google ?
This is nothing more than a (disappointed and sad) personal feeling...
PS : Sorry if I can't answer in the next 10 days, I'll switch to a more
brain-cleaner activity : a music festival ;-)
73 de TK1BI
1:07 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Re: Time to restructure the network ? For what ? Being sold like old socks ?
(Re-post in plain text)
Not my most productive message of the year, but as Ronen 4Z4ZQ just said
(in an empty message), "it comes from the heart"...
I have huge respect for people who have been managing AMPRNet on their
free time for years, I agree with the sale decision, but I clearly do
not agree with what some "ARDC Board Members" said publicly (see below).
Just a personal feeling, and I wanted to say it. I won't add anything
else to the advocacy. Sorry for the inconenience.
73 de TK1BI
-------- Message transféré --------
Sujet : Re: [44net] Time to restructure the network ? For what ? Being
sold like old socks ?
Date : Sun, 21 Jul 2019 08:32:20 +0200
De : Toussaint OTTAVI <t.ottavi(a)bc-109.com>
Pour : AMPRNet working group <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org>
Hi Rob,
Le 19/07/2019 à 11:42, Rob Janssen a écrit :
Now that we are all going to have to dive into our
router
configurations, wouldn't it be a
good time to make some changes that are long overdue?
Of course, testing new things, trying to "modernize" our old network
topology, and start thinking about IPv6, is probably the most clever
thing we can do.
That's what we're trying to do (quite modestly) here, in Corsica. We are
using Plug and Play TKBoxes, with OpenWRT, OpenVPN and internal OSPF
routing. Doing NAT traversal is easy for outbound, but it does not work
for inbound connections. That's why our setup relies on a central
gateway, which manages all the in/out communications. It's less
fault-tolerant than a full-mesh. But for now, I do not see how to do a
full mesh with automatic NAT traversal. This topology works fine for us,
because we're an island with two big cities. So, a dual-star network,
with two redundant entry points, seems quite natural. But this may not
apply everywhere. Maybe it's possible to create some "regional" or
"country-wide" platforms ? Before, we had a full-mesh and a gateway in
San Diego. Maybe we can have more distributed platforms and gateways
over the world... Communications from/to Internet are mandatory
nowadays; we can't just ignore them and continue working in "closed"
networks.
There are a lot of technical things to investigate and try here...
*
**But my main question is WHY ? Why should we continue spending our time
and our money, with the risk of being sold as old socks ?*
If I clearly understand, and agree, with the sale of 1/4 of the AMPRNet
address range, I don't really understand why we were not informed
before, which would have allowed everybody to contribute to the debate,
and to be involved in the final decision. I'm from a tiny country who
initiated what is probably the first democratic constitution of the
modern era in 1755, and it's known that it inspired the United States
constitution. So, this kind of "monarchical" decision makes me very
disappointed and sad.
*
**More threatening : I discussed on Facebook "Ham Radio Operators" group
with a guy (Bill HORNE) which clearly advocates for the sale of the full
AMPRNet range, and which even tries to give arguments for that !*
That makes me say : What am I doing here, and shouldn't I switch to
something else before I'm sold to Amazon or Google ?
This is nothing more than a (disappointed and sad) personal feeling...
PS : Sorry if I can't answer in the next 10 days, I'll switch to a more
brain-cleaner activity : a music festival ;-)
73 de TK1BI
1963
days inactive
1965
days old
10 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
Kris Kirby -
marius＠yo2loj.ro -
Michael Fox - N6MEF -
Rob Janssen -
Ruben ON3RVH -
Stacy -
Tony Langdon -
Toussaint OTTAVI -
Ty Bermea