> Building isolated trust domains is wrong, and we'll end up with > yet-another >IP overlay like D-Plus, D-Extra, IRLP, Echolink, eQSO, etc, etc. >A smaller and smaller Amateur community, more and more disconnected >from each other.
Yes, that is how a properly implimented network works. You have small manageable groups that continue to tie to trunk/backbones that connect all the little "nodes" out there. This is the design of both the PSTN telephone network and IP networking. It is what makes NAT possible in the first place. G2 uses it incorrectly and that is why some people are working to first understand all the things about G2 so that we can take the next step and write the software to correctly use the 10.xx.xx.xx network so that it will work. As far as the internet and trust servers are concerned all callsigns on any gateway should have the same public IP address, and the gateway should sort out how to handle the NAT part. The callsign would be used similar to port mapping. Who would figure that someone might write the software using a proven design? Large companies use the same type of system to manage people. Each department has it's own leaders and lines of outside communtication and all those departments may be in a single plant or outpost. All of those plants or outposts are under the corporate umbrella. It's a well known and proven design. > > I have no problem with the technicalities of what you are doing. > > But your assertions that what the Amateur community want are smaller > and smaller pockets of local connectivity are just plain wrong. I believe his assertations are that many people in the Amateur community do advocate this ability to operate independantly and collectively. Kind of like public service, if my house is on fire I don't want a cop, I want a fireman. And if someone is breaking into my house I want a police officer, not a fireman. However, there are times when both are needed in the same place at the same time to do their jobs.
