29 Jul
2021
29 Jul
'21
12:42 a.m.
Hello Antonis,
Thanks for answering, altought you says 'it seems' that could mean
some troubles could eventually arise.
Some Argentina's GW users are thinking on BGP, so another way things
could be worsening if those users decided to go on BGP.
Looking forward to keep our TCP/IP operation as it has always been.
73, lu7abf, Pedro
44.153 Coordinator
On 7/28/21, Antonios Chariton (daknob) <daknob(a)daknob.net> wrote:
From the description of your use case it seems that
you will not have to do
any modifications if this proposal is approved. If you want to use this
address space with BGP in the future (or through the PoPs), we can look at
it at the time, as I don’t know in which state everything will be by then.
So the answer is “No, you won’t have to do any modifications”.
Antonis
On 28 Jul 2021, at 19:14, Pedro Converso
<pconver(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for answering Antonis, but I don't quite understand.
Argentina has many hundreds of 44.153.x.x hams your can see on
http://amsat.org.ar/amprhost.txt
Many of these users have 44.153 gateways portal registrered, installed
and operational thru ip encap, with tcpip services protocols and aprs
radio and/or over internet using Rasbperries, Linux PCs or routers.
As for now no BGP are in use, that doesn't mean BGP won't be used in the
future.
This network has been in succesful operation since the eighties, and
keeps on growing.
Question again is, this proposed change will afect or impair our
operation ?. Please be specific as yes or no.
Thanks,
73, lu7abf, Pedro
44.153 Coordinator