As well all of a advertised block must me advertised only from a single asn. This is where this will start to get tricky.
Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: Michael Fox - N6MEF
Sent: 2012-03-16 12:56
To: 'AMPRNet working group'
Subject: Re: [44net] directly routed subnets
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
There are different levels of peering.
The policies below describe tier 1/2 peering between the big guys. Most
peering relationships are not at that level.
Many small businesses have peering with more than one service provider.
It's quite common. The current startup I work for has a /24 that they
announce to their colo provider in San Francisco, as well as the ISP that
serves their HQ location further down the peninsula. (The colo and their HQ
are tied together as one ASN).
Michael
N6MEF
-----Original Message-----
From: 44net-bounces+n6mef=mefox.org(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
[mailto:44net-bounces+n6mef=mefox.org@hamradio.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Tim
Pozar
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 9:43 AM
To: AMPRNet working group
Subject: Re: [44net] directly routed subnets
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
On Mar 16, 2012, at 8:20 AM, Brian Kantor wrote:
> Perhaps I should start collecting AUPs from various sources rather
> than having to create one from scratch.
>
> URLs to model AUPs would be appreciated.
In concern of BGP peering...
You can see some of the hoops that ARIN requires for an ASN at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html
See section 5 <https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#five> for ASN
requirements.
Certainly there are policies for peering that other ASNs. Some of these
policies are good to look at for requirements for announcing address space.
Some of the requirements are a bit onerous and don't apply. Comcast has
their set of requirements at:
http://www.comcast.com/peering/
Certainly things like "Applicant must operate a US-wide IP backbone whose
links are primarily 10 Gbps or greater" should not be a requirement. But
points like:
* Applicant must have a professionally managed 24x7 NOC and agree to
repair or otherwise remedy any problems within a reasonable timeframe.
Applicant must also agree to actively cooperate to resolve security
incidents, denial of service attacks, and other operational problems.
or
* Applicant must maintain responsive abuse contacts for reporting
and dealing with UCE (Unsolicited Commercial Email), technical contact
information for capacity planning and provisioning and administrative
contacts for all legal notices.
may be a good idea. The latter one would be needed to help resolve
poisoning of address space and getting listed on various RBLs.
Other sites that have peering requirements can be seen at:
ATT - http://www.corp.att.com/peering/
Verizon - http://www.verizonbusiness.com/terms/peering/
AOL - http://www.atdn.net/settlement_free_int.shtml
MFN/Abovenet - http://www.above.net/peering/
If folks want can make a stab at a draft for requirements for someone
announcing 44/8 space.
Tim
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
Brian and All,
I always thought it was a waste of a routable /8 to not have it routed
on the Internet, otherwise why are people just not using IANA space instead?
However, if it is to be routed on the internet I think some ground rules must
be established of what is and is not acceptable and penalties for not following
the rules and established guidelines.
Additionally, and I bring this up again, a RWHOIS server should/must be
used (tied in with ARIN on the 44/8 allocation) so that people can query
specific address space that will return the contact/owner of whatever space is
being advertised for whatever reason. Additionally, IRR entries should also be
required for anyone wanting to advertise space via BGP. Those should be some
common sence polices that need to be followed at the very minimum.
Obviously nothing smaller then a /24 should be advertised on the
internet as most Tier 1 carriers will block any address space that is smaller
in their BGP configs. I don't know what the whole breakup of space looks like
within each coordinator's /16 space (for those that have a /16 of space), but I
would think there surely is space in each that could be a usable /24 or larger
that could be utilized for that. Alternatively there seems to be a lot of space
at the upper end of the 44 block that could be used for internet routed blocks
if we wanted to use that first?
IP Space justification will be whole issue within it's self as well,
because if you only REALLY need /28 or /27 of IP's, one will still need to
advertise a /24. Perhaps who ever advertises space via BGP should accept the
condition that if only a portion of the advertise space is being used that you
will accept and allow another person needing the available space so that it's
not wasted. This could be tracked and allocated via the rwhois server in
conjunction with entries in IRR.
UCSD can still advertise the 44/8, and of course if anyone advertises a
more specific route, that will be preferred of the larger aggregate.
Be nice if we were all on a IRC chat channel to bounce ideas around? If
anyone is interested, how about channel #44net on IRC server network freenode
(irc.freenode.net). I'm on there now.
Tim Osburn
www.osburn.com
206.812.6214
W7RSZ
On Tue, 6 Mar 2012, Brian Kantor wrote:
> Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 11:14:57 -0800
> From: Brian Kantor <Brian(a)ucsd.edu>
> Reply-To: AMPRNet working group <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu>
> To: 44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
> Subject: [44net] directly routed subnets
>
> I've gotten several requests for directly routed subnets (ie, BGP announced
> CIDR blocks as subnets of 44/8, not tunneled) for ham radio use. These are
> people who want to set up HSMM networks in the ham bands, D-Star
> constellations, etc.
>
> I thought I'd ask folks what they think of the idea of setting aside part of
> the address space for that purpose?
>
> What issues do you see arising from doing so?
> - Brian
> _________________________________________
> 44Net mailing list
> 44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
> http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
>
Hello,
Thought I'd introduce myself.
I have taken over for as the regional IP coordinator for Wisconsin and
the Upper Peninsula (44.092/16).
I wrote a script to help identify expired callsigns, and have since
removed those entries for my area. This script my be handy to other
coordinators:
http://pastebin.com/d0HFmcG5
I made all attempts to not delete any active domains. If anyone is
experiencing a problem please contact me.
Steve Lampereur, KB9MWR
Rob,
It isn't meant as an automated tool. It was to aide me in lookup of
calls. It outputs a list of invalid calls, which I manually reviewed.
Here in the US, when you lookup a call that has been changed, the
databases reference that. ex:
http://callook.info/n9nof
What you describe sounds like a headache to keep track of.
We shot video of the presentations last week, when we get them processed
and posted, I'll make sure the link gets sent out to the group.
73,
Kenny, KU7M
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 11:23:43 -0700
> From: "John D. Hays" <john(a)hays.org>
> To: AMPRNet working group <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu>
> Subject: [44net] Slides from Presentation
> Message-ID:
> <CAN77r3xzhdtYrJLZYj3LYM0H3Recxii3-3AgofVkyyiKPbWOGQ(a)mail.gmail.com
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> http://www.microhams.com/digitalconf2012/K7VE_N7IPB_RebootNET44.pdf
>
> ------------------------------
> John D. Hays
> K7VE
> PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223
> <http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>
> <http://www.facebook.com/john.d.hays>
>
Hi Sam VK4FQ
I ask look on side: http://www.wwconvers.ampr.org
and write them for cairns all data not to be anonymous
--
73 de Janusz / SP1LOP
===== Janusz J. Przybylski, SP1LOP ==========
Poland AmprNet Co-ordinator [44.165.0.0/16]
=============================================
All,
Many have posted good responses on what would be needed to continue this project. I don't want to repeat any good suggestions (which I am also re-reading); but wanted to add a few; as I originally requested a subnet for the purpose of peering with Amateur Digital Radio Communications, or up to consideration of a Layer 1 connections to PoPs (I am working on such arraignments for our area using multi-homed non-commercial means).
I have polished up on my BGP routing concepts and found these things:
- in the MDC section, we would be seeking local peers via other non-commercial backbones
- Doing BGP, the assumption we were to arrange at least layer 1 connectivity (via wireless and/or terrestrial [our area is fiber or greater to peer] which we're working on), at least back to Brian, this will require an AS Number
- the concern in my area, want to pursue non-commercial means of announcement, redundancy to the non-commercial/commercial backbone, etc, in case the commercial network went down
- Internet2.edu is being built out from stimulus funds, it is primarily non-commercial - just a thought, and a path we're looking into
- I am willing to assist in this endeavor, and would like to sit-in on a conference call, if convened
- There are other networks I'm sure are willing to carry a VLANs over their fiber
- BGP to a PoP for most who wishes to peer with us would require us to really lobby our CFR Title 47 §97.1(a), that we have other Peers willing to provide Layer 1 Transport (working on this) - I see no need for us to work seperately, and wanted to mention this
Anyone interested in being homed with another Autonomous System, please consider working with together on a National Amateur Wireless Society, if we receive International Interest, we may have to see other regional interest. Also, would a regional authority be willing to donate us an AS number (made requests)?
~73,
Lynwood
KB3VWG
