Order Tray | Contact Us | Home | SIG Lists

[Ham-80211] Access control suggestions

Steven Phillips steven_phillips at yahoo.com
Thu Nov 4 20:16:44 UTC 2004


I was just using the Red Cross as an example.  As for
the rest of it.  It was just a brain storm to explore
another possibility.  The reason for using Part 15 for
the local networks is for security.  Since Part 15
doesn't have the encryption restrictions part 97 has,
it opens the doors to a wide variety of options for
securing the local network.  As for the backbone
links, as stated, using a narrow angle parabolic, high
gain antenna would, in itself, help secure the network
link from unlisenced use.
--- dubose at texas.net wrote:

> > If we want this to work then here's a course of
> action
> > that I think would be a good starting point.
> > 
> > 1 - Forget about which of the regulations to
> operate
> > under.
> > 
> > 2 - Devlope a "backbone" to the system.  This
> would
> > consist of central servers located at central
> command
> > centers.  In the event of Red Cross activities, a
> good
> > location would be the local Red Cross HQ.
> > 
> 
> Your assumption is that the Red Cross is the HQ of
> emergency communications and
> disaster plans.  However, while this might have been
> true a number of years ago,
> today the Red Cross is a user of ARES/ham emergency
> communications just as are
> local governments and other disaster relief
> organizations.  One should work with
> the local emergency manager to see what emergency
> communications are needed.
> 
> > 3 - Develop a small, portable and easily
> configurable
> > network infrastructure for field locations such as
> > shelters.  This network would consist of a small
> > server running a web server, mail server, ftp
> server,
> > and PHP applications to handle communications,
> > bulletines, anything we can think of that pertains
> to
> > the local site.  Of course, all of this
> ifnformation
> > would have to be stored in a database.  The HQ
> > permanent server would host this database.
> 
> Are these the  "services"  your customer's need? 
> That's the first question to ask.
> 
> > 
> > 4 - Local field sites would operate under part 15.
> 
> > Network links between sites would operate under
> part
> > 97.  This would allow local staff to communicate
> with
> > eachoter as needed.  Communication that needs to
> go to
> > ther sites would be relaed via the local server to
> the
> > local hams.  They would then foward the
> information
> > over the site link to the necessary site.  The
> > receiving site would then relay the message over
> their
> > local network to the final destination.  
> 
> Why not have a local site with 20-30 PCs in a local
> area operating under Part 97
> and one or two hams be the control operator(s)?
> > 
> > 5 - Utilizing technology such as openH323 would
> allow
> > for voice and video communications.  Persons with
> a
> > handheld computer and a wireless card could send
> live
> > video feed of disaster areas for damage
> assessment. 
> > Communication between non hams at different sites
> > would fall under standard 3rd party communications
> > over the Part 97 Backbone.
> 
> Again, see what does the customer want/need.  This
> may vary from customer to
> customer.
> 
> > 
> > Back to the Database.  Site servers would contain
> > information for the local site.  That information
> > could then be relayed to a central database at HQ
> for
> > permanent storage.  This would be a necessary step
> to
> > prevent information being sent by non hams over
> the
> > part 97 "backbone."  The database relay would be
> > manually activiated by a Ham on duty.
> > 
> 
> Walt/K5YFW
> 
> > So, there's a rough idea of what I'm thinking of.
> > --- "Eric S. Johansson" <esj at harvee.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > Steven Phillips wrote:
> > > > I have decided to use this topic as a research
> > > project
> > > > for my sociology class.  Here's a question
> that I
> > > have
> > > > come up with.
> > > > 
> > > > In my opinion, one of the major uses of this
> type
> > > of
> > > > system would be for emergency use in disaster
> > > > situations.  With the exception of long range
> > > > communciation, is really necessary to use WiFi
> > > under
> > > > part 97?  What I"m getting at, is this.  In
> the
> > > event
> > > ...
> > > 
> > > I've often argued that the best interface for
> > > emergency communications 
> > > is a browser, and a standard e-mail client. 
> Which
> > > means amateur radio 
> > > becomes a pipe over which non ham originated
> > > messages pass.  Therefore, 
> > > we should concentrate on building tools that
> work
> > > with standard Internet 
> > > protocols on one side, transport messages across
> RF
> > > links, and then 
> > > interoperate with standard Internet protocols on
> the
> > > other side.  I've 
> > > often suggested that UUCP is a good conceptual
> model
> > > for this environment.
> > > 
> > > before you get your part 97 undies in a bunch,
> yes I
> > > know there are 
> > > content restrictions which I believe should be
> > > waived for the 
> > > circumstances.  One could argue for this on the
> > > grounds that we're not 
> > > providing general access, we're providing a
> publicly
> > > beneficial service 
> > > to the agencies servicing disasters zones.  One
> > > could use tiered 
> > > services to allow individuals to send "I'm alive
> and
> > > OK" messages 
> > > outside but not accept any traffic back except
> under
> > > very special 
> > > circumstances.  This traffic obviously would
> have to
> > > go through the part 
> > > 97 scrutiny process.
> > > > 
> > > > Sheesh I'm long winded. 
> > > 
> > > comes with a territory.  I've had to go to water
> > > cooled finals I talk so 
> > > much.
> > > 
> > > ---eric
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > George Bush makes me long for the honesty of
> Richard
> > > Nixon
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > ham-80211 mailing list
> > > ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org
> > >
> >
>
https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ham-80211
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around 
> > http://mail.yahoo.com 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > ham-80211 mailing list
> > ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org
> >
>
https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ham-80211
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ham-80211 mailing list
> ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org
>
https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ham-80211
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 




More information about the ham-80211 mailing list