Hi All,
FYI - There was a bug in the code that emailed out the encap file to anyone that had the "only when changed" option set, resulting in the encap file not being emailed at all to them.
The bug has now been identified and fixed, so if anyone wants to receive an emailed copy of the encap file only when anything has changed, please login to the portal and click on: "Gateways" -> "Options" and alter the "Frequency" to "Only when changed".
If you do not wish to receive an email copy of the encap file, please ensure that the "Email" field on this same page is blank.
Thanks,
Chris
Following requests from co-ordinators, I have added some additional functionality to the portal.
If you are a country or regional co-ordinator you now have an extra menu link "IP Allocations" from where you can view / edit all the subnets you have allocated.
73
Chris - G1FEF
Here are "all" the IANA assigned numbers, if we're gonna get technical :)
"Private-Use" being really the important ones.
http://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry/iana-ipv4-specia…
Tim Osburn
www.osburn.com
206.812.6214
W7RSZ
On Fri, 1 Mar 2013, Jann Traschewski wrote:
> Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 22:41:34 +0100
> From: Jann Traschewski <jann(a)gmx.de>
> Reply-To: AMPRNet working group <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu>
> To: AMPRNet working group <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu>
> Subject: Re: [44net] encap.txt
>
> (Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
> _______________________________________________
>> For now I have block most of the bogons plus 44/8 thusly:
>>
>> /^(0.|10.|44.|127.|169.154.|192.168.|224.)/
>
> Isn't it 169.254. ?
>
>> When I have more time I will create a more elegant table based filter, so we
>> can allow/deny subnets.
>
> Maybe it is worth to put 172.16.|172.17.|...|172.31. into the list (if
> it will not "break" the line :D)
>
> 73,
> Jann
>
>
> --
> Jann Traschewski, Lenbachstr. 6, D-90489 Nuernberg, Germany
> Tel.: +49-911-696971, Mobile: +49-170-1045937, E-Mail: jann(a)gmx.de
> Ham: DG8NGN / DB0VOX, http://www.qsl.net/dg8ngn
> _________________________________________
> 44Net mailing list
> 44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
> http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
> http://www.ampr.org/donate.html
>
The portal has all the visible text in a separate language file, so can very easily be translated into other languages, but I need some willing volunteers!
So, if anyone is willing to create and maintain alternative languages for the portal, please could they drop me an email. I know a couple of people did mention this in the past, but if you could get in touch again, I am now ready to deploy the language files.
Thanks,
Chris
KK6CND [Chris Foreman],
Please resubmit your allocation request to the AMPR portal. I forgot
to allocate a proper IP address to your previous request.
--
Geoff Joy - ke6qh -
AmprNet IP Address Coordinator for San Bernardino & Riverside Counties.
geoff(a)windomeister.com
Steve,
I am running EchoLink Proxies at 44.60.44.253:443 and 44:60.44.254:80
I am woking on a SIP based VoIP system, it is not up at this time.
~Lynwood
KB3VWG
Hey folks,
I'm going to stand up a quagga server over at 44net-tunnel-endpoint.org
in the next week or so. Would any of you be willing to give me a
private feed of the v4 table (and v6 if you've got it) using a reserved
AS number on my end? It's been a while since I've done this, so be
gentle with me ;-)
From http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1930:
10. Reserved AS Numbers
The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) has reserved the
following block of AS numbers for private use (not to be advertised
on the global Internet):
64512 through 65535
Thanks much!
C.J.
44net-request(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu wrote:
> Last time I tried doing
> whois on a name it failed. The spammers have made it impossible to put up a
> whois because they mined them all for valid emails so organizations had to
> abandon it.
Maybe it varies between TLDs. I never got much spam that I could trace to .nl domain
name registration (note that .nl now no longer reveals contact info via whois, but they
used to in the past).
On the other hand, what really buried me in spam is registering for some port
numbers and a organization unique ID at IANA. They published the requester's
mail in a text file on their site, and for port numbers it is in /etc/services. I have
had to abandon some mail addresses because of it.
Rob
44net-request(a)hamradio.ucsd.eduwrote:
> Rob,
>
> I have a dutch licence and there is nothing in there about host names.
>
> Is this only a requirement for unattended gateways as these need a
> separate licence
> from the government there?
>
> Bob (Boudewijn) VE3TOK
I reply to this item only to avoid posting several messages, but I have read the other replies as well.
Back in the days when we were still doing a packet network, the situation was like this:
The license said "each packet should be identified by the callsigns of the station where the
traffic originates from, and the station that is actually transmitting the packet".
This made point-to-point packet legal, as well as digipeated packet. Both comply to that
requirement.
The method used by NET/ROM was illegal. It transmitted packets from the nodes using a modified
originator callsign. The packets had the callsign of the original source, but not the callsign of
the node that was transmitting them. When I adapted NET/ROM into NET, I created a system
where the exit node transmitted a "faked" digipeated packet that looked like if the node had
actually digipeated a packet (while it in fact was making a downlink connection). That made it
formally compliant to the license requirements, and was also more convenient for the users as
it showed where the traffic was actually coming from. The same thing was done in Germany,
in other software.
Then look at IP. An IP packet transmitted via the network and sent by a node/router has the
AX.25 callsign of the node transmitting it, but does not carry the callsign of the original source.
Someone consulted the authorities about it. He got the assertion that it would be accepted
as identification if there would be a publicly available mapping between IP address and callsign,
so they could consult that when wanting to determine the source of the traffic.
All the time after that, the hosts file for the Netherlands has been publicly available both on
the BBS system and on telephone BBS (in those days) and Internet (later). And there was the
Internet DNS with this information.
It may be that the current license no longer explicitly states the callsign requirements, there
have been changes. I just have continued to always use the callsign as part of all hostnames
assigned to allocated IP addresses within 44.137... (callsign.ampr.org or label.callsign.ampr.org)
Note that all this is only the situation in the Netherlands, I have no idea how regulations are
in the US or elsewhere. Also note that all this is mostly academic, as packet radio is now
formally illegal in the Netherlands except for stations with a "notice of variation" for unattended
operation.
Why that, you ask? Well, it went like this. There has always been a NOV requirement for
unattended stations. Nodes, repeaters, BBSes etc required such a notice from the authorities
to allow operation without the operator being present. User's packet stations did not require
this NOV as long as the operator was present during use of the station. And many operated
on the edges of what was really allowed, it wasn't really enforcible anyway.
(e.g. the station transmitting a file while you are watching TV or sleeping, is that "attended"?)
Of course an unattended phone repeater also requires a NOV. To get one, one needs to fulfill certain
criteria like a minimal distance to another repeater on the same band. And there is co-ordination
to distribute the limited number of channels. There are always some people do not want to play
within those rules and started operating "attended repeaters" on all kinds of imaginable
channels, and D-STAR hotspots, sometimes after a request for an NOV was denied to them.
It somehow irritated the authorities and they redefined the "attended" requirement: it must be
the operator himself, either directly or via some authenticated link guaranteeing it to be only him,
who keys the transmitter. A repeater or hotspot, where the transmitter is keyed by the reception
of a signal not from the operator, is now declared to be in requirement of an NOV no matter if
the operator is actually present or not.
And it is also stated that there will be increased effort to monitor and effectuate this regulation.
Unfortunately, a packet station, even with the operator sitting at the keyboard, is now outside
these bounds. The transmitter is keyed as a result of someone transmitting towards you, if only
to transmit an acknowledgement. And this is explicitly no longer allowed in the definition.
I have no idea if this has been the intention and what they now actually think about packet.
It is very likely that we are only the victim of the desire to regulate the phone repeater mess,
and it was not the intention to disallow point-to-point packet or user-to-node packet as well.
Rob
