28 Jul
2021
28 Jul
'21
6:31 p.m.
Antonios,
I don't see this as an improvement on the current network. I see it as a complete
useless redesign of the network that will make it harder on the average ham to get onto
the network.
How does he decide if he want to connect to the (useless) intranet? Why would he want to
connect to an intranet, what solutions does it solve and what information can be found on
that intranet that should not be publicly available? Keeping in mind that we are amateur
radio operators, bound by license and that we should not have any secrets seems
contradictory to having a private intranet that can only be reached by radio. Also keeping
in mind that radio is not an option for everyone. For example, Belgium has no connectivity
to HAMNET and is completely separate and only routable from the internet. We do not have
"secret" parts.
If he then also want a range to be publicly routable, then he has to request an extra (!)
subnet and be smart enough to configure his router with policy based routing so that the
public part goes to his allocation and his other allocation is not routed to the internet
nor reachable from the other network? This will cause more problems and standard routers
cannot do this kind of policy based routing. Thus creating more issues..
I agree with the others that using a publicly routable ip space, especially a /10 is a
waste of ip and resources for an intranet. What is the basis of the TAC to consider that a
non-issue? It is not because we have large parts of space unused that we should squander
it
Also, did you take into account during your tests that not everything responds to icmp
ping packets? There are large parts that filter icmp packets at the border.
And for last, please do not rely on static routing! As this is a redesign, at least use
dynamic routing protocols.
73
Ruben ON3RVH
-----Original Message-----
From: 44Net <44net-bounces+on3rvh=on3rvh.be(a)mailman.ampr.org> On Behalf Of Antonios
Chariton (daknob) via 44Net
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2021 00:32
To: 44Net general discussion <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org>
Cc: Antonios Chariton (daknob) <daknob(a)daknob.net>
Subject: [44net] A new era of IPv4 Allocations
Fellow radio amateurs, I am writing to you on behalf of the ARDC TAC, which I represent.
Those of you that were on our Community Call last Saturday may remember that I promised
you we would share our first proposal with the community. A few days after that, I am
happy to send that to you for your review, feedback, comments, questions, and
information!
You can find our 5-page PDF here: https://pdf.daknob.net/ardc/tac128.pdf
<https://pdf.daknob.net/ardc/tac128.pdf>
The title is "ARDC 44.128/10 Allocation Proposal” and it briefly explains what we
propose to do with the IPv4 space of ARDC. It is based on careful consideration, planning,
and actual research[1] performed on the IP network and the Portal allocations.
Since the TAC does not have any authority on the IP (or any other) resources of ARDC, and
we only have an advisory role, we end this document with a proposed resolution we intend
to submit soon to the ARDC Board of Directors, where we urge them to vote and approve some
key things required for us to be able to achieve what is described.
We believe that the TAC represents the community and the 44 Net users, so we created this
document and post it here in advance, with the purpose of being able to answer your
questions, collect your feedback, and hear from you. This is why we briefly explain the
situation in about 4 pages, and then we end with the resolution we want the ARDC Board of
Directors to approve.
I hope you like it, and I remain at your disposal for anything you may need.
Antonis
Links:
[1] - https://blog.daknob.net/mapping-44net/
<https://blog.daknob.net/mapping-44net/>
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net