44net April 2012

44net@mailman.ampr.org

10 participants
8 discussions

Re: [44net] directly routed subnets
by William P.J. Bressette 08 Jun '12

08 Jun '12

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

7 23

Re: [44net] directly routed subnets
by Tim Osburn 07 Jun '12

07 Jun '12

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 >

12 28

WI Domain cleanup
by kb9mwr＠gmail.com 11 Apr '12

11 Apr '12

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

3 4

Re: [44net] WI Domain cleanup
by kb9mwr＠gmail.com 10 Apr '12

10 Apr '12

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.

2 1

Re: [44net] Slides from Presentation
by Kenny Richards 06 Apr '12

06 Apr '12

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> >

1 0

Slides from Presentation
by John D. Hays 05 Apr '12

05 Apr '12

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>

3 2

WWConvers Australia carns ???
by Janusz Przybylski SP1LOP 04 Apr '12

04 Apr '12

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] =============================================

1 0

Re: [44net] directly routed subnets
by lleachii＠aol.com 03 Apr '12

03 Apr '12

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

2 2

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

44net April 2012