| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 24.09.00 01:11l 187 Lines 6987 Bytes #999 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_258D
Read: DC1TMA GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/258D
Path: DB0AAB<DB0PV<DB0MRW<DB0ERF<DB0FBB<DB0GOS<DB0PKE<DB0OVN<PI8JOP<PI8ZAA<
PI8HGL
Sent: 000923/2108Z @:PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU #:17310 [Den Haag] FBB $:HD_2000_258D
From: PA2AGA@PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 00 19:42:27 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_258D>
From: pa2aga@pe1mvx.ampr.org
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga.ampr.org
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 03:45:40 -0500
From: "Steve Sampson" <S.Sampson@nojunk-radio-link.net>
Subject: TCP/IP Address 2
> This would make it very hard to connect your new host into the
> existing tcp/ip network. What is the reason to *not* use an address
> in the local subnet?
Stop it. The suggestion was, there were no existing IP networks, and
the user wanted to set one up. Otherwise he could have just contacted
the person he heard on the air instead of a worldwide newsgroup.
> The point, Steve, is a simple one. For some subnets, there is not
> a coordinator. If nobody tells Brian about this, there never will be
> a coordinator for that subnet. So you might as well go directly to
> Brian and get things fixed.
My only sub-point had to do with what the interested party did
during the time that all this coordination would consume.
> Huh?
Who?
> Duh ...
Really!
> Exactly the point. Someone would be stupid to use anything other
> than a net 44 address over ham radio. Nobody could talk to them.
Your suggestion that using a 44 address is going to solve all problems,
is bogus at best, if there is no current 44 network. You're assuming some
other 44 net will be reached, and the chances are, that it won't be
reached during your lifetime. This may be hard to understand in a city
that has intelligent stop-lights every quarter of a mile, but out on the
prairie, it's another story. You may *never* run into a digital ham group.
> A related issue is the state of the assignments. There are assignments
> to folks who have died, have moved into different subnets, have
> changed callsigns, etc. There appears to be no mechanism to keep
> the assignements anywhere near close to reality.
It used to be, that someone could step up and take charge and edit
the ampr list, but hackers put an end to all that. Even still, you could
ask for a password and become the editor if not the coordinator.
> Yet another issue is how to percolate radio network routings into
> the internet. There does not seem to be any move toward a
> solution of this "interesting" problem.
Go read all the poop at www.ampr.org as it has a very narrow vision
of what net 44 is and will ever be. Pretty dry, and not very interesting.
Whoever wrote that HTML doesn't drink beer in a social setting.
> Example: you cannot ping i386.w0rli.ampr.org from anywhere on
> the internet, even though there are (at least) three different ways
> to reach that (radio only) host from the internet over ham radio
> network links.
Most ham routers don't know what to do with non-44 net addresses
and drop them by default (X-1J for example).
> These are things that need to be fixed, to make tcp/ip a more
> viable option for ham radio.
Yes. But not under the current top-level management. You can't
fight city hall, and sometimes it's better to find another solution.
One that is more dynamic and real-time; and, there are other
solutions.
What I am proposing, is the 44 net has outlived its usefulness,
and I can think of two ways to do the same thing.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 05:37:03 -0500
From: "Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@swb.net>
Subject: TCP/IP Address 2
<horseshoestew@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8qc12q$gkp$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <2wey5.1335$QI1.121340@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net> wrote:
>
> > Yet another issue is how to percolate radio network routings into
> > the internet. There does not seem to be any move toward a
> > solution of this "interesting" problem.
>
> Only because you are "out to lunch", and can't see the future. Of
> course there are "moves" going on. Most of these folks are working at
> places like Motorola and Qualcomm, etc.
>
In other words, folks who work for companies that would stand to make a
bundle of cash any time Hams lose spectrum. - Particularly in light of
"wireless Internet".
> > Example: you cannot ping i386.w0rli.ampr.org from anywhere on
> > the internet, even though there are (at least) three different ways
> > to reach that (radio only) host from the internet over ham radio
> > network links. The tcp/ip community has simply not found any way
> > to solve this particular problem.
>
> Of course they could. The problem is - noboby gives a poop about
> amateur radio applications, because of attitudes like yours - which
> stifle the obvious Internet backbone solutions. Commercial Internet-
> backboned RF networks are the future.
Actually that is not the future, but the "present" way that many commercial
outfits are doing things. Railroads, for example. - But none of these
commercial outfits is "Ham Radio", and Ham Radio is not a commercial outfit.
What works well for them can be a very efficient way for Hams to shoot
themselves in the foot.
Different objectives require different means of getting there.
When the no-code tech liscense was brought up, we Hams heard a lot about all
the "expertise" we would get from the telecommunications industry... What we
got instead from that industry were a bunch of narrow-minded morons who
can't see past their own noses, and who have no real interest in Amateur
RADIO. - Along with a goodly portion of characterless jerks who repeatedly
try to talk Hams into doing things which will lead directly to loss of
spectrum. I suppose they figure that if they can undermine Ham Radio and
claim credit for it, they might get a raise or a promotion.
>
> > These are things that need to be fixed, to make tcp/ip a more
> > viable option for ham radio.
>
> You got that right. Nobody is going to mess around with ham radio
> solutions, when they can make millions of dollars doing the same thing
> with commercial applications.
>
There it is again, the typical LandLine Lid confusion between the
motivations of Amateur Radio operators and the motivations of commercial
outfits.
If you are not really interested in being a Ham, why not do the decent thing
and turn in your license?
--
73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
n5pvl@swbell.net
http://home.swbell.net/n5pvl/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 08:56:06 -0400
From: "Len" <umina@theuminas.com>
Subject: WinAPRS and Precision Mapping
I am having trouble with getting WINAPRS to work Precision Mapping. The
maps improve from the distribution version, meaning they are in color and
zoomed out I see the major highways, but zooming in just makes the highways
dissapear. The route markers stay.
Anyone else having or had this problem?
/Len
K1LU
------------------------------
End of Ham-Digital Digest V2000 #258
******************************
You can send in your contribution to this digest by
sending an e-mail to: hd-group@pa2aga.ampr.org
or (via BBS-net) to: hdaga@pi8vnw.#zh2.nld.eu
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
