Re: [44net] A new era of IPv4 Allocations : Agree

Rob you say, Totally true! the /24 minimal size is for get smaller routing table on the internet routers. It is good practice on networking to inplement such solution. And the TAC proposal is exactly that. splitting 2 /10 blocks (4,194,304 possible host for each /10 ) to have 2 simple network that are easy to maintain. You probably know that already. Now lets think about the future and not the past. We want more use of the 44 net. We want entry level to be easier, we want people to learn networking, we want them to do it in a safe manner and we want them to be able to interect just between them or between them and the rest of the world. Now imagine a new user that receive a /28 from one of our pop. He need a router to manage his allocation and advertise it on the metwork he will do it by iBGP and he will need to route the /28 on his side. He will also need to know to who he want to connect and not. If he want to connect to the whole routable internet there is no problem. He route everything to the AMPR and all is good. But what if he want ham only on his network. He make routing tables to the 12 millions possible 44 IP adress we still have? How will he know that some of those IP are not real ham or those address can have some endrypted packet and those will end on the airwaves on his RF networks and put him in a very bad situation toward his governing regulator. Exactly people wont want to split route and program certain subnet and do all that maintenance that need to be done if a new allocation is given or other not fun task. They will want simple things to do and they will want to have fun while learning. You also say: Yes we are miniscule compared to the internet, and even less then a speck of dust compared to the IPV6 address space. This does not mean that we should not care about building a simple and stable network where simpler user wont have to care about routing and checking their config every few weeks to make sure they have all the lastest desirable to them subnet as they will addon with time. Remember that there are people thet DONT want to have route to and from the internet. How will you provide them with a /28 and a stable and simple configuration if they connect to your RF network that have route that goes and come from everywhere? Firewall? Will the sysop of all the rf network will love to have to deal with specific configuration on some of their node for user X? and then he decide that another node will work better for him, he turn his antenna and everything need to be reconfigured. Dual addressing of both the 44.0/10 and 44.128/10 on RF backbone and the pop's will fix all this type of maintenance. Yes it will be a assle to add the second route to your existing setup as a sysop. But as a sysop you will not have to fiddle with every change users will want to do. your config will be a little more complicated. But the whole network will be a lot less difficult to manage. Technically if the proposition would been accpeted you would not even neet to renumber. You would need to dual route 2 subnet. The one you already have that would become the intranet for ham only and a new subnet that is open to the whole worls. You could have all the configuration /ssh port of your deveice facing the hamonly portion of the network and have no more russian/china/kiddy scanner harmering your router for brut force access. Then your user could choose to joint either of the 2 possibility or even better both but in a very controled fashion and with a sens of securit for the ham only side cause none of the non ham world would have access. It is not a perfect system, but when you can remove 99% of risk from a system it is a huge improvement. I do not say it will be perfect and good security practice wont be needed. But we will start with a very large leap. I understand that you are not happy to have to change stuff in your network. But can you be a little bit more open to change? ________________________________________ De : 44Net <44net-bounces+petem001=hotmail.com(a)mailman.ampr.org> de la part de Rob PE1CHL via 44Net <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> Envoyé : 11 août 2021 10:54 À : 44net(a)mailman.ampr.org Cc : Rob PE1CHL Objet : Re: [44net] A new era of IPv4 Allocations : Agree On 8/11/21 4:37 PM, Toussaint OTTAVI via 44Net wrote: Le 11/08/2021 à 16:05, Rob PE1CHL via 44Net a écrit : I think ARDC can offer end-user PoP access to their backbone themselves, and regional groups can always decide to setup their own access which connects to such a PoP and allows their own end-users to connect. But we may have a problem if we tie a specific user to a specific subnet on the portal, and we want to provide him the same subnet whatever the POP he uses. F/ex, if a Corsican user obtains an allocation for Internet stuff (assume 44.190.11.0/30), and if he connects to your POP in the Netherlands, how could we route the incoming traffic to it ? As Internet eBGP minimal subnet is /24, 44.190.11.0/24 will still be announced via my POP. That means I'll have to route the incoming traffic from my POP to yours, then to the user ?

On our current design, subnets for users are allocated by us locally, and we have two local POPs, both announcing our subnet. Access routers can connect to POP1 or POP2. That's easy because all is local. But if we want to allow any user to connect to any POP and always get the same IP/subnet, things may not be so easy...

Human being is what it is, and I don't think this is specific to amateur radio, HI :-) Thus, every user must be allowed to connect to any POP of its choice (not necessarily the nearest). On a dynamic DHCP pool, that's easy. But if we want to distribute the same subnet to an access router whatever the POP, is it possible to do that automatically at WW scale ? Does it make sense for a TK user to connect to a PE POP ? The fact our Echolink clients often connect to VK proxies is definitely not a good reason, HI :-)

Then, should we revert to something simpler, with mandatory "primary" and "secondary" POPs (based on geographic location, and with specific configuration / agreement between POP operators) ?