29 Jul
2021
29 Jul
'21
8:02 a.m.
As others have stated, this seems to be a solution for an undocumented
problem. While the era of RFC-1918 conflicts is a well known problem *(consider
companies merging internal networks),* this can be alleviated by RFC-6598 -
otherwise known as 100.64.0.0/10. This would allow for a geographical,
regional, per project, etc allocation schemes to help amateur networks
interconnect. AREDN for example uses all of the 10/8 1918 space, but that
still leaves plenty of other IP blocks available - most importantly, blocks
that already have the internet routing community support to be used as
private networks and not announced on the open internet.
If the demand exists, why not start off with a smaller allocation than a
/10, say a /16? Has a particular project demonstrated the need here?
Personally I'd prefer for ARDC, the TAC, etc to focus on the challenging
operational issues. IPIP tunneling is a challenge in the era of NAT, V6,
etc.. make tunneling more modern and approachable. Anycast or at least
multihome the current single tunnel box in San Diego, ideally
geographically disperse, etc. This is mentioned in the resolution section
but should be expanded a bit more. RPKI is a looming issue, how does one
issue ROA's without an active RIR relationship, etc. Today BGP allocations
are at the whim of the coordinator, some very knowledgeable in this space -
others who have no idea. Maybe "getting the house in order" first, such as
publishing clear requirements and expectations for allocations would be a
good start - see ARIN's Number Resource Policy Manual
<https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/> an example *(note, not
necessarily suggested such a high legalize document - since ARIN is clearly
more a law firm, then an RIR - but consider the clear guidelines). *
--Matt / K6MPP
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 3:32 PM Antonios Chariton (daknob) via 44Net <
44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> wrote:
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