19 Jul
2019
19 Jul
'19
6:44 p.m.
On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 09:43:32AM -0700, David Ranch wrote:
Wow... that's very bad news Thomas and I can only
imagine the amount of work required that it will be to request new netblocks,
coordination, and implement the technical changes on multiple layers (network, firewalls,
documentation, etc).
Oh yes....
To the larger topic, I don't understand how such a
huge netblock could have been overlooked by the ARDC!
There was no overlook.
Our network was the only in the sold /10 netblock.
Jann dg8ngn and Brian were in contact about an upcoming renumbering. Thus we had the
chance to consider the impacts and the necessary steps for renumbering.
Currently, the only impact is the missing reverse lookup in the internet (inside our
network, our nameservers still resolve when our internal nameservers are used).
It was specifically mentioned from one of the board
members that this was a critical criteria for him to approve. This conflicting address
space even publicly published on the AMPR web pages (even as of 7/19/19 @ 9:35am PST)!
It was considered and concluded that it's no showstepper.
Our /15 netblock has not advertised to direct bgp, thus it has no influence outside our
ampr networks.
I have to imagine that there will be other amateur
radio operators that use this 44.192.0.0 - 44.255.255.255 aka 44.192.0.0/10 address range
on a non-registered basis that will be impacted.
Only assigned networks are routed inside the ampr ipip mesh.
Only assigned networks have been allowed to be announced to bgp.
In the ampr DNS we do not find any other entry.
=> For somebody who used a non-assigned block internally (internally, just because
nobody could talk to such a network), nothing has changed. Except that he might now have
problems to reach amazon services. But he should have been aware that it's not a good
idea to just use a non-allocated netblock..
That's a risk those people took when not properly
registering their uses BUT, in theory, their were protected from major changes by the ARDC
with what I would assume would have been an open and public dialog before any changes were
made.
A public discussion of this sale would have at least given those operators a chance to
speak up or at least have some warning.
My personal opinion is: you are right (and I miss talking about "we are 44/8" -
is it the money worth? - I don't know -- we might have so much luck with it, or we may
fail).
But strictly speaking, we are not the owner, as Phil has already described. And yes, it
would have been good practice to talk about in advance.
But I also respect the decision: because only that strategy helped to get the maximum
price.
=> If we loose a netblock for doing the the best to our hobby, I see no good reason for
going into the risk of loosing money.
vy 73,
- Thomas dl9sau