Date: Sat, 30 Oct 93 04:30:01 PDT
From: Advanced Amateur Radio Networking Group <tcp-group@ucsd.edu>
Errors-To: TCP-Group-Errors@UCSD.Edu
Reply-To: TCP-Group@UCSD.Edu
Precedence: Bulk
Subject: TCP-Group Digest V93 #281
To: tcp-group-digest
TCP-Group Digest Sat, 30 Oct 93 Volume 93 : Issue 281
Today's Topics:
AMPR gateways on Internet
Dynamic IP Addressing
Send Replies or notes for publication to: <TCP-Group@UCSD.Edu>.
Subscription requests to <TCP-Group-REQUEST@UCSD.Edu>.
Problems you can't solve otherwise to brian@ucsd.edu.
Archives of past issues of the TCP-Group Digest are available
(by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives".
We trust that readers are intelligent enough to realize that all text
herein consists of personal comments and does not represent the official
policies or positions of any party. Your mileage may vary. So there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1993 21:10:54 -0500 (CDT)
From: Steve Sampson <ssampson@sabea-oc.af.mil>
Subject: AMPR gateways on Internet
To: TCP-Group@UCSD.Edu
> I see a possible trend in gateways that is bothering me somewhat.
> That is using a "wired/commercial" network to pass AMPR traffic
> WHEN an existing AMPR circuit either exists or could easily be made
> to exist.
There are those who feel even stronger that NO wireline links are
spiritually correct.
> Certainly there is no argument for many of the circuits - I.E.
> Australia to the US etc.
Range shouldn't be a qualifier.
> The problem is when you have two adjacent areas within the US that use
> gatewaying when an AMPR radio cicuit exists.
Range shouldn't be a qualifier.
> We are Amateur Radio and RF is our "thing".
The problem with technology today is that many expect instant
gratification. "Speed is life." Some want to have real-time
data exchange over great range. But the technology to me is
amazing that we can send a message in less than one day just
about anywhere on the amateur map. I don't really see a need for
anything faster than this. Hams don't really have a real-time
data requirement. If speed or emergency is the object, maybe RF
to the nearest available wireline should be used. This is
common with repeaters connected to wireline. (there are many
hams who also feel that autopatches are not our "thing" either).
> Have we lost sight of what this is all about?
What this is all about is a cross between experimentation and
enjoyment. This isn't serious business and can't support
reliable communications. The conflict comes when some do want
reliable communications. They find that amateur stations come
and go with interest shifts, and thus seek out the wireline
alternative. The answer it seems, is that amateur radio
communications will always have a low technology base, and be
for enjoyment purposes only - a hobby. It will become less and
less significant as the country gears up for very high
technology license-free communications at affordable prices.
Cell phones are now free, 1.5 Mbps modems will be free also in
the coming years. Cell phone and modem monthly rates will be
about an hours wage.
> I am contemplating setting up a gateway. It will be my policy if and
> when I do, to NOT pass traffic to areas which can be reached by RF.
By inserting a wireline node into the system, no matter what the
reason, you have decided that RF is not capable of meeting your
needs and a crutch is needed to fill the gap. You could come up
with the same reasoning for short hops. RF goes everywhere, I
don't know of a place on earth that you can't radiate onto.
> I don't care how slow the circuit is. If engineering wise a circuit is
> feasible via RF than that's the way it should go.
Unless instant gratification or real-time is the goal.
> Maybe technology has really gone beyond Amateur radio. It won't be to
> many more years when you will have a palm size personal communicator that
> will transceive in many modes to anywhere in the world via satelite.
This is the crux of the matter, radio technology is big business
now, and the common human doesn't want to be bothered by
regulation or licensing. They want a gadget, they want
reliability, they want privacy. Changes in the next 10 years
will completely obsolete what we are doing, probably even
obsolete the internet (as we know it).
Amateur technology schemes sometimes brings these folks down to
earth. The example that comes to mind is the micro-sats, an
expendable low budget idea, that can fill many needs. It's not
real-time, but who cares? That's where ham experimentation and
ideas really justify the priveleges we receive. Doing something
significant in spite of all the regulation restrictions.
---
Steve N5OWK
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 93 10:54:42 EDT
From: "William Allen Simpson" <bill.simpson@um.cc.umich.edu>
Subject: Dynamic IP Addressing
To: TCP-Group@UCSD.EDU
This is a problem that has received a lot of attention in the IETF
recently.
There is a new set of RFCs on Dynamic Host Configuration (DHC), which
use BOOTP as a basis, but provide extensions for registering transient
addresses.
There are a couple of drafts (down from 6) for routing mobile-ip.
See the internet-drafts archives at ds.internic.net or ftp.nisc.sri.com.
Both were designed to be easy to add to NOS.
Bill.Simpson@um.cc.umich.edu
------------------------------
End of TCP-Group Digest V93 #281
******************************
******************************