Date: Tue, 2 Nov 93 04:30:02 PST
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 #284
To: tcp-group-digest
TCP-Group Digest Tue, 2 Nov 93 Volume 93 : Issue 284
Today's Topics:
AMPR gateways on Internet (2 msgs)
AMPR gateways on Internet. (2 msgs)
Radio and Wire
stuff
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: Mon, 1 Nov 93 11:04:01 EST
From: crompton@NADC.NADC.NAVY.MIL (D. Crompton)
Subject: AMPR gateways on Internet
To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu
Well I knew I would stir up some converation when I started this thread and
it seems there are many opinions as there should be.
I don't think that most have their minds made up as to the way things should
be and not much is going to change it. I stand by my original comments that
wherever possible we should build and use Amateur networks and not depend
on other services.
One thing that we forget is that those other services as they now exist in
many cases are not as dependable as AMPR. They depend on an individual
(probably a ham) at some organization (more often than not a school) to
connect AMPR to the wired network. When that individual goes away many
times the connection does also. What if Brian K. went away? Is there a
replacement that would maintain the system out there.
Someone mentioned "old farts and kids" and "instant gratification" The
younger generation (I am somewhere in between) of today expects to much
and when you couple this with Amateur Radio it means that you constantly
have to offer more gimmicks to keep them interested. Maybe it dates me
but I find much more gratification in an SSB contact with someone at the
DX limit of a particuliar band than a data connection when I know that
most of the path is connected via a non amateur service. Hell you can call
Moscow or virtually anywhere in the world on the phone and jam as much
or more digital data down the line as most AMPR circuits.
The danger of using these services is that when we do, AMPR circuits
that should be in place (when it can be) between the areas, will never
happen. The hams will never take action if a circuit exists even if it
is not an AMPR circuit.
Personalities will always be a problem. In many areas the AMPR network
"providers" do not allow TCP/IP or netrom or whatever. Because it is
Amateur Radio you cannot force anyone to do anything as long as it is
within the rules. Fortunately in most cases we do get along. The biggest
problem that I see is for enough stations to "volunteer" to be reliable
(always on) switches. The other problem is NOS's lack of a reliable
automatic path selection scheme. This is one of the advantages of netrom.
I can't say use the AMPR circuit and if that fails THEN use the wireline
alternative.
So, no real answers, but at least we are talking about it. Maybe I will
go become a farmer. Being an amateur one now, I sometimes find that much
more gratifying!
Doug
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 93 22:50:09 PST
From: algedi!kenk (kenk)
Subject: AMPR gateways on Internet
To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu
On Nov 1, D. (D. Crompton), in <9311011604.AA04565@NADC.NADC.NAVY.MIL> wrote:
> Well I knew I would stir up some converation when I started this thread and
> it seems there are many opinions as there should be.
>
Why am I not surprised :-)
> I don't think that most have their minds made up as to the way things should
> be and not much is going to change it. I stand by my original comments that
> wherever possible we should build and use Amateur networks and not depend
> on other services.
And on this part I certainly agree.
>
> One thing that we forget is that those other services as they now exist in
> many cases are not as dependable as AMPR. They depend on an individual
> (probably a ham) at some organization (more often than not a school) to
> connect AMPR to the wired network. When that individual goes away many
> times the connection does also. What if Brian K. went away? Is there a
> replacement that would maintain the system out there.
While this is a legitimate concern, the same can be said of relying on
strictly RF connections. Joe Ham provides a gateway that links parts of
a network together, then gets tired of the whole thing and goes away.
Seems like the same problem to me.
>
> Someone mentioned "old farts and kids" and "instant gratification" The
> younger generation (I am somewhere in between) of today expects to much
I'm not sure where I fit in this, over 40 and acting like 20 :-) :-)
> The danger of using these services is that when we do, AMPR circuits
> that should be in place (when it can be) between the areas, will never
> happen. The hams will never take action if a circuit exists even if it
> is not an AMPR circuit.
I guess I'm not that pessimistic, I see too many hams looking for a challange
and attempting to do things the "hard way".
>
> Personalities will always be a problem. In many areas the AMPR network
Unfortunately all too true.
> problem that I see is for enough stations to "volunteer" to be reliable
> (always on) switches. The other problem is NOS's lack of a reliable
With a large enough active user base this should not be a problem, at least
it doesn't seem to be around here.
> automatic path selection scheme. This is one of the advantages of netrom.
> I can't say use the AMPR circuit and if that fails THEN use the wireline
> alternative.
I certainly would not give this one to netrom, RIP works just fine, especially
coupled with subnet routing.
>
> So, no real answers, but at least we are talking about it. Maybe I will
> go become a farmer. Being an amateur one now, I sometimes find that much
> more gratifying!
A farmer with a BIG antenna farm :-)
Relying on wireline links to build our whole network is probably not a good
idea, but using it as a way to encourage and keep interest while more reliable
rf links are provided is quite legitimate. Here in the Seattle area we have
been lucky enough to have a reasonably large user base but also the support of
one of the local cellular telephone providers (USWest NewVector). It's very
probable that without the use of their cell-sites and the high-speed links they
provide that we would not have the user base we have today. That's not to say
that without them we would have never grown to this size, just that it's happened
a lot sooner than if we had relied on slow rf links.
Packet users are like any other group, they need to have some incentive and
reward for their efforts. If the effort involved in building a reliable
network becomes to great they loose interest and the whole system comes apart.
Using wireline and Internet links is one way to hold that interest, the rest will
come with time.
73's Ken, N7IPB
WETNET: 12 lans, 8-1200baud simplex, 4-9600baud repeaters,
50+ 24hr a day stations, no waiting,
and still growing.
wetnet.wa.com internet gateway coming soon.
--
W W EEEEE TTTTT N N EEEEE TTTTT : Ken Koster
W W E T NN N E T :
W W W EEEE T N N N EEEE T :
WW WW E T N N N E T :
W W EEEEE T N NN EEEEE T : AMPR: kenk@algedi.ampr.org
Washington Experimenters TCP NETwork : UUCP: algedi!kenk@Data-IO.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 93 17:07:22 UTC
From: wb9mjn@bbs.ve3jf.AMPR.ORG
Subject: AMPR gateways on Internet.
To: tcp-group@UCSD.EDU
Hi. I m in support of the Amprnet gateways. There are many reasons for them.
Allot of people learn how to really operate TCPIP stations, because they
have a need to , that need being generated by the AMPRNET links. This is
one of the primary purposes of Ham Radio, at least in the U.S.. To educate
people. AMPRNET gateways also promote rf network building. Like Ron has
said, people like those "killer" applications. This puts packet into some-
bodies backyard, a reverse WIIMBY ism (Why Isn t IT in My Backyard). AMPRNET
links don t really retard long range links. They were and really are totally
stagnant in places where they are percieved to be unaffordable. Packet Networks
are a big job, and most ham groups are not up to it. The AMPRNET links really
don t change this. They don t generate money. They don t generate RF exper-
tice. They don t damage what is already there. The AMPRNET links only generate
good, in the networking arena, because they don t generate anything bad.
I would like to see Ham Medium to Long Range networks. But I don t think
i m going to see it for years and years. Back in 1988 my paper in the ARRL
CNC illustrated how the midwest could have a reliable 56 KB network, for
considerably less money than any other similiarily reliable schemes. Yet,
Nobody but me, and a few freinds have done anything about it. And the general
ham population has retarded our efforts. Its nice to say AMPRNET links are
not Ham Radio, But Ham Radio, in general, Really Doesn t Want Medium to Long
Range Packet links. Its too much of a change for the average entrenched
comfortable , short sighted ham. AMPRNET helps keep Packet Radio alive, until
the mass ham radio comunity will allow it to happen.
We don t have medium and long range packet links, not because we can do it
with AMPRNET links, but because Hams are not capable of the unified action
neccassary to achieve these links. AMPRNET happend, as a result of this
inaction, and sand bagging by packet hams, and the general ham population,
respectively.
So, really, any criticism of the AMPRNET links, is a false thing. In my
view. I m really suspect of the motives of anybody who would suggest we
should not do this kind of thing. But, then i grew up exposed to Chicago
Politics, and i just may be overeacting, hi.
73, Don. wb9mjn@wb9mjn.ampr.org, wb9mjn%wb9mjn.ampr.org@wb9uus.bradley.edu
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 93 17:31:21 EST
From: crompton@NADC.NADC.NAVY.MIL (D. Crompton)
Subject: AMPR gateways on Internet.
To: tcp-group@UCSD.EDU, wb9mjn@bbs.ve3jf.AMPR.ORG
Don,
Not sure what you are referring to as AMPRNET??? My understanding is
that this is an Amateur radio packet network not an internet (or
commercial) relay.
Doug
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1993 02:30:16 -0700 (MST)
From: Klarsen <klarsen@acca.nmsu.edu>
Subject: Radio and Wire
To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu
I agree with both sides of the argument on whether to use the internet
as a medium for ham bbs forwarding. I do forward via the internet with
Remi f6cnb. It works pretty good and is the fastest route between Las Cruces
NM and Houston TX. I do this because our radio packet network breaks down
most every winter, and with nodes at 10,500 feet elevation you don't get there
in winter except by snowcat.
Even in NM we have the "private networks" and I am proud to say I
am locked out of it. Dick Taylor, N5NGZ decided to build a network for
"keyboard operators" where no bbs or dxcluster or internet gateway stuff
is allowed. He uses the TheNet chips that allow a sorta lock-out and Dick
uses up most of the onboard ram of his nodes with a lock-out list...hi
I and several others decided to just put up nodes and let them be
used. Lock out no hams. Let dx clusters and bbs and tcpip and...use it and
if it gets overloaded work toward speeding up the link. As of today the
main link between El Paso TX and Las Cruces is at 9600 baud and the El
Paso end is at the dx cluster stations home.
So I am in both camps. I am an OLDFart but it seems to me that
the only thing for sure is that things change. I plan to change with
the times. It will be nice when we get connected by radio over long
distances. But in the meantime....
73, karl k5di@k5di
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1993 00:07:26 -0500 (EST)
From: wy1z@meceng.coe.neu.edu (Scott Ehrlich)
Subject: stuff
To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu
subscribe tcp-group wy1z@neu.edu
------------------------------
End of TCP-Group Digest V93 #284
******************************
******************************