[nos-bbs] polling?

[George [ham] VerDuin]

You sound frustrated Gus...


On 05/08/2012 02:59 AM, Gustavo Ponza wrote:
> And what about the *continued* exclusion 
To characterize dynamic IPs as excluded is not real accurate.
Static IP works nicely per the encap.txt design, dynamic IP is a real pain.

There is a patch floating around to enable domain name as a substitute 
for IP number.
It found daylight under the MI-DRG subnet here in Michigan USA out of 
Kalamazoo.
But the domain name approach never gained traction, static IP number 
remains preferred.
The lead guy in DRG did allow a few dynamic IPs into the subnet but the 
vigilance was tedious.
Let's not even open the discussion to timeliness.

> of radio
> amateurs to participate to the ampr.org gateways
> only because they are not fortunate enough to own
> a static internet IP address?
May I suggest the static IP is simply a cost of admittance since inception.
It is the basis of design.

I like a good wager -- I'll bet amprnet might entertain dynamic IPs if 
you offered a development that would respond to dynamic changes in IP 
without manual labor required for network maintenance.  JNOS is not the 
only software used,  therefore change to the basic design touches many.  
Have you considered the consequence of the impending(?) IP number 
expansion on Internet?  That change removes the need for dynamic IP 
numbers for perhaps always.  Also -- I'm not in the amprnet leadership 
group thus I can't speak for them and my wager is merely speculation.


>
> 73, gus i0ojj
73, Skip