www.a00.de > tcpgroup > 1991 > msg00090

TCP-group 1991

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


According to Brian Kantor:
> Not the way things work now.  You could get a bunch of class-C networks
> instead, but then you have a bunch of little networks, not one big one.

This then brings up the question, "Do you really believe that it is possible
for Amateur Radio to tie the entire world together in one net?" and "If
it does happen, would it be fast enough to do really do anything?".
Maybe a bunch of little networks is a better idea.  I'll get back to this

> Depends on whether you think we should and whether we can use the
> internet as a way to hook our bunch of little networks together.  That
> is, after all, what your asking for.

Actually,  using the INTERNET to provide connectivity for AMPRNET is not
what I am asking for.  It would occur strictly as a side effect.  What I
am asking for is AMPRNET <-> INTERNET connectivity.  I am looking for a
way that people who only have Amateur Radio and a deep interest in subjects
like DSP can communicate with people who are not HAMs and have a deep
interest in subjects like DSP.

>                                        In any case, you are free to
> request a class-C network for your area if you want, and if you can get
> permission to interconnect it to the internet in your area, it might do
> what you want.  I don't see "turning in" the class-A, since we'll need
> it to build the big network that I envision as our goal.

The reason why I discounted arguments of legality in the first paragraph
is because I have already talked with someone at PrepNET (The PA piece of
NSFNET) and their initial response was that connecting our piece of AMPRNET
to PrepNET (and thus to the INTERNET) was within the guidelines of The
Acceptable Use Policy for PrepNET as it currently stands.  I am aware of
the fact that there are areas of Part 97 that may still be in conflict, but
a short time ago, un-attended operation of HF packet stations wasn't allowed.
We now have an STA for it and probably will have full permission in the not
to distant future.  I believe that this could be true for AMPRNET<->INTERNET
in the future as well.
I do not want to make a little dis-jointed network here in NEPA.  What I
really want is for us to take our rightful place in the INTERNET community.
I hope that my ideas (ideals?) are shared by others in the HAM community.
Just as .MIL, .GOV, .EDU etc. do not have one connection, I believe that
trying to do it with AMPR.ORG is an unrealistic goal.  I am looking for a

> I'd like to connect it, but I think it should be a separate network
> that has interconnection with the internet, not a bunch of little toy
> networks that depend on the internet to hold the pieces together.
>         - Brian

As was probably assumed from my statements, I too would like to see it
connected.  One big difference, I think, is that I am impatient.  I wan't
to see it connected today.  I don't believe that there is going to be a
contiguous AMPRNET any time soon.  I am not even sure it is possible.  If
it is, I would like to hear from the people who are planning it.  Otherwise,
I think we should re-assess our overall network plans.

Of course, this is only one mans opinion.

bill   KB3YV

     Bill Gunshannon          |        If this statement wasn't here,
     bill@platypus.uofs.edu   |  This space would be left intentionally blank
     bill@tuatara.uofs.edu    |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>

Document URL : http://www.a00.de/tcpgroup/1991/msg00090.php
Ralf D. Kloth, Ludwigsburg, DE (QRQ.software). < hostmaster at a00.de > [don't send spam]
Created 2004-12-21. Last modified 2004-12-21. Your visit 2020-10-20 12:19.21. Page created in 0.0481 sec.
[Go to the top of this page]   [... to the index page]