[HamWAN PSDR] hamwan.net DDNS [was: hostname on ampr.org?]

[Tom Hayward]

On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Bill Vodall <wa7nwp at gmail.com> wrote:
> SSH had cipher=none.  They disabled it.  They removed it because
> somebody might accidentally use it.
>
> The High Performance SSH folks put it back.
>
>   https://launchpad.net/~w-rouesnel/+archive/openssh-hpn
>
> I'd start there if (when) I get back to 44 net use.

We started here, or at least are aware of it.

The problem is that we don't know how to replace the SSH daemon that's
built into ROS. Sure, we could run OpenWRT in a metarouter on the
modem, then normal SSH from the metarouter to ROS (all within the CPU,
encryption doesn't matter). A better solution would be to distribute a
.npk that you can upload to your modem to replace the built-in SSH.
Mikrotik does not provide an SDK for this, so we're trying to reverse
engineer their package format to see if we can generate our own.

In the meantime, I'll accept your argument that there's no obscuring
of intent when using SSH for administration. And there's always
telnet.

> Who has the 44.44.44.44 address?   44.24.24.24 ??   That would make
> for interesting 44net or wwa.44net DNS access.

44.44.0.0/16 belongs to Massachusetts.

44.24.24.24 is unassigned. It looks like John Hays has been assigning
/32s out of that range. We would need the whole /24 to be able to
anycast it, so that idea is out.

> The biggest problem - still - as I mentioned at dinner at Kirkland
> last year - is finding a use case and selling it.  That's a bigger
> problem than all of these RF and TCP technologies.   Alternate
> internet access is nice but not the magic silver bullet.  Some of the
> other uses are nice but not the big thing everybody can use.  I've
> heard 3 independent repeater discussions where folks were thinking and
> excited they could replace their existing $30 per month internet with
> $20 per month HamWAN.  I don't believe that's a real option due to the
> Amateur Realm.    (The answer is 'Facebook' but that's a different
> discussion which I hope to start on the 44net sig later this week...)

Did you ask them why they wanted internet at their repeater site?
Surely not for YouTube! Maybe they want to link two repeaters
together, ideally with low latency. HamWAN can do that, no internet
required. It's cheaper and has better control that UHF links.

I'm just curious what they actually want to do.

Tom KD7LXL