[96711] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: motivation for routing a bit of 44.0.0.0/8
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Neal R)
Mon May 21 22:19:30 2007
Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 21:16:10 -0500
From: Neal R <neal@lists.rauhauser.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <8586.1179796986@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
I think based on the way things are going the city will be just fine
with it :-) Of course, if I had a nickel for every time I've had this
theoretical discussion I'd jingle when I walk, so we'll see how it plays
out.
Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2007 19:49:49 CDT, Neal R said:
>
>> Set up a separate SSID exclusively for HAM use. Use IPsec AH -
>> cryptographically signed traffic keeps the unlicensed out without
>> breaking the no payload encryption requirements. City gets help with the
>> civil defense radio of the 21st century, HAMs get a new toy, and
>> everyone is happy. Sure, there are security concerns, but the interface
>> to the outside world is a proxy server HAMs can use while doing storm
>> watch and such ... nobody gets in or out without a note from the FCC ...
>>
>
>
>> Or am I making this just a bit too simple?
>>
>
> The hams might be OK on it. The city probably won't be thrilled unless
> you can find a way to get their legal staff to sign off on it. Remember,
> most lawyers aren't geeks, and will judge a proposal on a different basis
> than geeks do.
>
>
