29 Jul
2021
29 Jul
'21
2:07 a.m.
On 7/28/21 18:34, Rob PE1CHL via 44Net wrote:
On 7/28/21 7:28 PM, Antonios Chariton (daknob) via
44Net wrote:
Evening All,
This is a lively one.
Cards on the table, I'm one of the unlucky sods(44.155/16 with one /24
separately announced) that would have to do a good bit of re-ip ing of
hosts including AMPR based DNS/APRS and BrandMeister Servers as well as
re-doing/re-negotiating BGP peering should this proposal be accepted,
that said, I'm not averse to change.
I think the reasons for limiting 44.128/10 to Radio only networks are
very weak.
Someone already suggested that RFC1918 space could be managed to provide
unique address space, and I would tend to agree.
I don't see the utility of assigning 44.X addresses and then restricting
them to radio only network. This can be done today by putting, a simple
ACL rule at the edge. At least then if the user changed their mind, they
simply remove the ACL and they can have direct internet access, also, if
a 44.X node is dual-stacked, then the chances are they will be
accessible over IPv6 anyway (without the use of an IPv6 ACL)
I can see how having one single route would simplify things, but that is
really a limitation of the users understanding, not I daresay a
limitation of any hardware available today (or in the last 10 years)
I'm not involved at the Carrier level, but I would hazard a guess that
advertising a prefix would almost always be better than not advertising
a prefix to prevent piracy.
In summary, reading the proposal, I don't see any real advantage to this
for anyone really, and thus would not support it, but it's been great
for getting a discussion going.
Responding to Rob, to my shame, I was not able to lurk on the 44NGN list
to follow that discussion. I wonder has anyone summarised the discussion
in a fashion similar to this proposal for everyone to see?
Regards
John
EI7IG
Do you suggest that we kick out all the “network
noobs” and only have a network of “network pros”? I am personally against the idea of
discriminating against users based on their skills. I would not like to be part of a
network where only “pros” are allowed and all “noobs” are shown the door. I see great
value in being open and inclusive to everyone.
But that is what we have now, with the IPIP mesh! I have repeatedly discussed
here that we need to
replace that with something easier to use, and it is always only postponed.
Brian used to say: that costs money, and we don't have any.
But that is no longer a valid statement.
So now there must be some other reason. But you would not know, as you even did not know
about the above discussion.
I am sure most participants here know what I mean.
Instead of replying to mail, I suggest that you read some of the archives.
And ask Chris G1FEF for the archives of the 44NGN list because that contains important
information that you should read and understand before proposing a network restructuring.