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

Dear Antonios, Am 28. Jul 2021, um 00:31:52 schrieb Antonios Chariton (daknob) via 44Net: I have read the proposal, and would like to ask for clarification on a few points. These points possibly may have been covered in some discussions on the 44-ngn list, so I wanted to review possible discussions there, but the link to the archives of that list on www.ampr.org is currently broken. a) How do you define the "[amateur] radio network" as used in the first paragraphs of your proposal? Is there a difference to the term "Intranet for radio amateurs" as used in your proposed ARDC resolution? The former reads like a description of involved hardware/systems, while the later describes its users (licensed radio amateurs). The former could also be read as a policy/guarantee that no non-amateur-radio based means of communication are involved. Is that intended ? I note that you also use the term "radio-only network" on page 3. Since 44.0/9 according to your proposal is not "radio-only", this would mean that 44.128/12 should not be accessible from 44.0/9, which is the opposite to your proposed resolution. b) Which route do I need to put into my router to address the radio network ? In particular, how can you answer this question without considering the specifics of each individual case ? Why would there be only one route? c) Can you back up the "originally intended" claim somehow ? I note that net-44 originated in the USA, which historically has rather liberal third-party traffic rules compared to other countries, d) You propose a policy of not announcing the prefix on the internet. "the prefix" is presumably 44.128/10. Do I have to understand this as going back to pre-2012 (no direct BGP) or pre, uh, 1990 (someone remind me please when mirrorshades started providing encap tunnels and announcing 44/8). e) Is there a rationale why existing regional networks cannot decide themselves what level of internet connectivity they desire, considering e.g. the local ham radio regulations and keeping their numbering and infrastructure which have been assigned to them long before ARDC existed as an entity. Is there a particular reason for not grandfathering them ? f) Would proposed resolution #5, if adopted, direct ARDC to fund AMAZON's network connectivity ? [OK, I don't expect an answer, but ask to consider it as an example that far-reaching proposals must be worded *very* carefully] 73s, Mario, DL5MLO -- Mario Lorenz Internet: <ml(a)vdazone.org>