[FADCA] Security guidelines

[D.Calder]

Agreed.

AND, I certainty see nothing wrong with Inet on the backside. I just don't
think it should be what
we rely on only. In the end, I think the failsafe fallback should be all RF
and not on wire with
a few servers collecting it all.

More speed = more hops, more height, more tower space......

73 n4zkf


-----Original Message-----
From: fadca-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:fadca-bounces at mailman.qth.net]
On Behalf Of Charles "AI4RI" Blackburn
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 2:52 PM
To: Florida Amateur Digital Communication Association
Subject: Re: [FADCA] Security guidelines

D.Calder wrote:
> But you have a INET connection on the backside to complete it. It's good
as
> long as it works.
> 
> I have radios and TNC's capable of 9k6. Time to move forward? With Radio?


yes i do, but i feel that to move forward we should look at things
like higher speeds on 220 and up. with dstar here and things like
that things are going to move quickly and we (as an organisation)
imho dont want to be left in the wake of that.

our existing infrastructure can be upgraded so that back haul links
can run at say (for example) 14k4 or higher - you obviously want
back haul links at a higher speed that "local" networks.

how we could play that out i dont know, but i agree, we need to
research things more.

charlie
______________________________________________________________
FADCA mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fadca
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:FADCA at mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html