20 Apr
2020
20 Apr
'20
10:49 a.m.
This may cause address conflicts once the addresses are used by the
purchasing entity.
It is probably best to implement a plan to move the addresses to a new
block.
On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 8:50 PM Jann Traschewski via 44Net <
44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> wrote:
On 19.04.2020 22:11, G1FEF via 44Net wrote:
It is safe to route 44.190/15 through the ISP (for those who are
affected). They should do it do it for 44.192/10 anyway...
No need to change on your side.
73,
Jann
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
--
------------------------------
John D. Hays - K7VE
Kingston, WA
<http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>
<http://www.facebook.com/john.d.hays>
Maybe the
portal should not be in one of those 44.190 networks that
are not supposed to be on IPIP, but it should be in another net-44
subnet that is both BGP routed on internet and IPIP routed on the
mesh. Then it would work OK.
I could move it to a different block (not within 44.190/16) and set
it up so that it’s part of the tunnel/mesh as well if folks think
that will be better?