What is the LinLink Project All About.

[dubose at texas.net]

All,

Read Harv's  E-Mail carefully...he makes some good points and I will interject
a few of my own...

Quoting Harv Nelson <harv.nelson at gmail.com>:

> Hi Scott and the group,
> 
> Again, my primary contention centers on definition ...
> 
> "Emergency Communications:
> Immediate and temporary communications assistance, provided until the
> normal, usual, and dependable means of communication can be restored."

The problem is that sometimes it may take days or even weeks to restore
normal, usable or dependable communications.  There are singel points of
failure for Internet "routed" traffic even in cities as large as San Antonio.
 And while there may be the capability to dump off lots of "fiber" traffic to
copper lines, it can never equal what fiber does.  Therefore, you might find
it weeks before dependable or even usable Internet routed communications returns.

> 
> The operations you are currently engaged in are NOT "temporary".  They
> are permanent and on-going.  They are provided, not as supplemental
> assistance pending the restoration of normal services, but as an
> adjunct to the "normal, usual, and dependable means of communication"
> ... in short,  they are on-going COMMERCIAL operations on frequencies
> restricted and reserved to Amateur use.

I believe that daily exercise of contingency systems is necessary to insure
that the system is always available for "emergency" communications.  Just as
we use our local 146.94 repeater for SkyWarn, it is a daily chit-chat
repeater...but when needed for SkyWarn, it broadcast a warning tone every few
seconds/minutes and there generally is a netcontrol or repeater controller
managing traffic on the repeater.  The same MUST apply to any messaging system
that is used on a daily basis.

> 
> By opening your systems to casual, un-monitored, and unrestricted
> access from the Internet, for use by all comers (licensed in the
> Amateur Service, or not);
> 
> And, when in fact, no emergency situation, in which you are offering
> assistance, exists;
> 
> Then, you have assumed the functions of a COMMERCIAL COMMON CARRIER.  
> 
> Your Amateur License grant does not give you the privilege of
> performing these functions on frequencies allocated to the Amateur
> Service.  The fact that you are not performing these services "for
> hire" in no way dismisses your current functional status as a Common
> Carrier.  When the messages are transfered from the Internet ... from
> a licensed Common Carrier ... thru your systems ... and passed to the
> facilities of another Common Carrier (many in the International
> Services) ... then, defacto, you are operating as a COMMON CARRIER.
> 
> The fact that you are not paid or compensated in no way absolves you
> of the responsibility for providing the services incumbent on the
> status you have assumed.   Your Amateur License gives you no
> protection in this regard.


I hadn't looked at WinLink that way, but this does appear to merit a closer
review of the situation much as we have looked at repeaters.  Please not that
the FCC has said in Part 97  that amateur radio communications MUST NOT take
the place or be used in place of normally available communications.  That
means if you live in an area that is serviced by plane old telephone service,
 that using a repeater autopatch as your only telephone communications is in
violation of Part 97.  

I don't know where this leaved WinLink or using WiFi under Part 97 for
bringing Internet connectivity to hams without broadband connectivity...but if
you have access to DSL or cable broadband, then using WiFi under Part 97 would
appear to be a violation of Part 97.
> 
> You state:
> 
> > The system over all has 6000+ daily users and it handles 150,000+
> messages
> > each month.
> 
> I ask, what happens when you have 60,000 daily users and your system
> is pressed  to carry not just 150,000 messages each month ... but
> 15,000,000 messages DAILY!?

This is exactly correct...with no way of filtering or preventing access to the
system by non-priority traffic, you may find that your system is usless.

We find in our local Emergency Management Communications that if the whole
city depended on routing traffic though our ham radio facilities, that we
might expect to generate 5000 messages a day going outside the city.

>  
> Can't happen!, you say.  Au contraire, mon ami!
> 
> <Disclaimer>
> What follows is presented only as discussion and illustration and
> nothing by way of design, intent, advocacy, or threat.
> </Disclaimer>
>

Planning by Example Scenerio...has been identified my industry as a best practice.
 
> <Scenario>
> What happens when some asshole decides to send two of his buddies each
> a copy of the King James version of the Holy Bible .... but only one
> verse per message.  Each of the 31,000+ messages will be PGP encrypted
> and contain a PGP signature.
> 
> Each message will appear to come from a different, but legitimate and
> existing email address (the CD, containing at least 10,000,000 such
> addresses, is available on the net for about $15).  To confuse the
> issue just a bit, and diddle your security system, he'll intersperse
> messages containing quotations from "Tom Sawyer",  "Alice in
> Wonderland", listings from the Chicago Telephone directory, and
> grocery shopping lists.  He'll "spoof" his IP to make tracking him
> down just a bit difficult.
> 
> When each of the "buddies" begins receiving his copy of the Bible, he
> will, in turn, relay it to two more "friends" and they, in their turn,
> will do like wise.
> 
> You realize, of course, that all the 'buddies" and all the "friends"
> reside on one laptop computer (running LINUX :-).  He's operating in
> an "Internet cafe", drinking his coffee, working on a crossword puzzle
> from the Times.  As the  laptop appears to be gathering "stock
> quotations", the wifi card is spitting out its drivel to you.  You
> know what I'm speaking about ... you're in the business.
> 
> He won't send enough messages in one batch to make it look like an
> email bomb.   He just wants to keep your transmitter busy with his
> crap for the rest of the day.  Unless your rig is hardened Harris type
> commercial equipment, built to military specs,  he'll burn in up in
> three days or less.
> </Scenario>
> 

I can think of much worse and more practical scenarios but all come down to a
saturated Internet during a high volumn requirement for disaster message traffic.

Note that not all emergency communications will require amateur radio
assistance.  Even all disaster communications may not require amateur radio
assistance.  However, there will be times with in either situation there is a
for additional communications capability...this is where hams can step in.

> And, who knows.  There may be more than one alpha-hotel loose in the world
> ... just waiting for you to get back on the air with that new Icom.
> 
> In answer to your question ... No, I'm not a terrorist.  I can't help
> it, I just think like one.
> 

That's the only way we can prepare for them....think like them.

> The specifics of my scenario probably won't work exactly as outlined
> here.  What I've presented is just one of many possible ways your
> systems could be compromised.  That is what makes them useless for the
> purpose you have stated  ... A national Emergency Messaging System.

That's why a national emergency messaging system build on a dependency on the
commercial "wired" Internet is a risk.  And while an emergency messaging
system that does not use the Internet may not be able to carry the volumn of
traffic that an Internet connected system does, at lease it will not be blown
away by DDOS and like attacks or virii.

> 
> The system LEAST vulnerable to attack and compromise, is the "ad hoc"
> system which arises in immediate response at the moment of need ...
> multi-modal, multi-faceted.   If there is one thing I have learned
> about emergencies ... it is that they seldom follow the plan you have
> outlined for them.

Yes...the "ad hoc" system is the way to go; however, if you have the basic
parts of the system in place, such as repeaters and HF RF message gateways,
then the ad hoc network can function to meed the overall communications
requirement.

73,

Walt/K5YFW

> 
> 73
> Harv, AI9NL
> 
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 04:38:51 -0600, Scott Thile (K4SET)
> <k4set at radioministries.org> wrote:
> > Hello Harve and all,
> > 
> > Want to clarify something. WL2K is not ONLY a "national emergency
> messaging
> > system". And this is why it will be there and ready to use, and have a
> force
> > of highly trained operators with well tested stations.
> > 
> > Harve says:
> > >There is really little need for your "national emergency
> > >messaging system" (WL2K, or facsimiles).  If it sees any use
> > >at all, it will be only in weekly and monthly testing
> > >sessions.  In the intervening periods, the system will likely
> > >be carrying commercial traffic, which operators won't be able
> > >to distinguish because it will all be encrypted.  There will
> > >be a few people who run to the bank with your sweat and
> > >effort,  laughing all the way ... and, when all the patriotic
> > >horse puky finally washes away, they'll sell off whats left of
> > > your HF frequencies to the highest bidder.
> > 
> > The system is not dedicated to EMComm, and that is one of it's strengths
> > (and why it even exists). Some new PMBOs are now non-published EMComm
> PMBOs.
> > But the entire system will be there for EMcomm because it is tested
> every
> > second by the daily users. Something glitches (rare) and someone knows
> it
> > nearly instantly. Several of us are monitoring these systems throughout
> the
> > day. It is used daily by maritime hams, missionaries and humanitarian
> > efforts, RVers, and now some involved in EMComm.
> > 
> > My PMBO here received connections from 45 users from around the world
> over
> > the last 24 hours (mostly over HF Pactor) some Telnet and some through
> VHF
> > Packet gating through Telpac nodes. I monitor it's status throughout the
> day
> > from work. If I miss a glitch, 9 times out of 10 I get a cell phone call
> > and/or an E-mail from the system admin. Our busiest PMBO just had the
> > following report:
> > 
> > "Station Statistics over past 24 hours for K4CJX. Generated on
> 2005/01/14
> > 05:00 UTC Number of users: 397 Total Connect time for all users: 1331.3
> > minutes Total traffic volume: 1944.7 Kb"
> > 
> > He does that kind of volume using three full time scanning HF stations
> and a
> > VHF Packet node. A few of those were over telnet (very few).
> > 
> > The system over all has 6000+ daily users and it handles 150,000+
> messages
> > each month.
> > 
> > None of this is commercial traffic. It is all legal ham radio content as
> > defined under Part 97. Many of these 6000+ users are available for EMComm
> if
> > needed, not because that is their primary interest in the system, but
> > because they are hams and human beings that care and they are equipped
> and
> > trained through daily use as their primary communications.
> > 
> > We are seeing this play out now with several maritime WL2K users in
> South
> > Asia helping with the Tsunami effort. They have transitioned from
> cruising
> > vacationing sailors into critical communications links. We saw the same
> > thing in spades last summer during the incredible hurricane season in
> the
> > Caribbean. Lives were saved in Granada and many improved as a result of
> > these committed individuals who transition from cruising sailor into
> > critical EMcomm operator as soon as the need arose and they secured
> their
> > own situations.
> > 
> > We saw the same thing with the hurricanes in FL when several RVers went
> in
> > to the effected areas to handle traffic, and one PMBO transitioned from
> > server to user when his home was without power, ISP, or phone for a
> week.
> > 
> > Some of this daily use is mission critical traffic for relief efforts,
> > medical efforts, missionaries. Some of it is casual messaging between
> family
> > and friends. Some of it is ARES/RACES EMComm folks testing their back up
> > systems. ALL of it is testing the system and helping us to be ready to
> > respond on a daily basis.
> > 
> > I aggress with Harve. If you design a dedicated system for EMcomm using
> > amateur radio, and that is its only mission, it may not be there when
> you
> > need it. This one will be!
> > 
> > 73 and 75, Scott, K4SET
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Linlink mailing list
> > Linlink at wetnet.net
> > http://wetnet.net/mailman/listinfo/linlink
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Linlink mailing list
> Linlink at wetnet.net
> http://wetnet.net/mailman/listinfo/linlink
> 
>