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

Hey Antonios/Everyone, Sorry for the late response, just getting back from vacation and sorting through email. Trying to put my two cents in for a few of the threads that have been rolling around. IMHO the TAC plan as presented is a non-starter. Anything that involves significant re-ip is overly burdensome even with funding. Usually $$ isn't the issue here, it is time and motivation from independent network owners usually operating on a volunteer basis. Also, if a re-ip isn't mandatory, we'll never get to the nirvana state where you can use the hard coded routes without being 100% compliant, we'll always have the legacy ranges that stick around. This is a pretty fundamental re-design of how addresses have been historically allocated which is a big challenge as well. I also fail to see the justification of reserving 44.64/10 with no future purpose when it is already in use. I currently have space in this range that would be orphaned. While it wouldn't be a significant deal for me to re-ip, as you've seen from other posters it will be for some and I fail to see the well defined purpose to sequester such a large space. Re selling space, there is no reason to sell more space. ARDC has plenty of funding assuming it is appropriately managed going forward. If anything they have the opposite problem, make sure funding is appropriately allocated and well spent. Back to the proposal, do we really need to allocate a dedicated /10 for unconnected purposes? How about finding a /16 or /15 not in use or with limited use? Is there really that large of a defined need to have 4 million IPs reserved as unconnected? For me, I appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback and this seems to be a solution in need of a problem. I might be missing something but I fail to see the justification for this radical of a change in your paper. Re the future, from my perspective I am very interested in the new TAC-proposed Global PoP infrastructure and portal that has been proposed. I'd love to see more/better gateway options, different options for connecting (including easy to use methods for "newbies", options for those stuck behind carrier NAT aside from running their own BGP/POP, and a better portal to manage the space and connection options. This is where I’d be focusing a lot of my time. IMHO the TAC should be focused on network stewardship, architecture, policy, and community need. I may have missed it, but does the TAC have a defined charter? It might make sense to get community feedback and prioritization on the problems we are trying to solve. I'd also like to see ARDC have a better focus on providing network POP and hosting infrastructure that supports the amateur community. While giving out grants is great, I could see growth on the operations side as well to support better infrastructure. Especially with funding there is no reason you couldn't staff a small infrastructure department to support this. Another focus would be security, IMHO from my perspective there is little visibility in to what transverses the network and if the AUP is being followed. The "maybe a DOS" event we had a few weeks ago is a good example. At a minimum those type of incidents should be investigated and a postmortem published (properly redacted if needed). Given the exposure externally it'd probably be a good idea to have a formal incident response process in place. Re the endpoint and connection discussion, I do use a Pi3 as my IPIP gateway using one interface and 802.1Q VLANs. I have it behind my primary pfsense firewall and forward ipencap from external to it. My notes on how I set up the pi are here: http://k9mev.ampr.org/piconfig.txt This works for me but requires a bit advanced understanding of linux and networking, feedback is appreciated though if I did something improper :). If you'd like to tackle something similar and need some help please do reach out. Happy to discuss via email or set up a zoom call. I think the Pi solution or a cheap Mikrotik are both valid solutions. I'd like to see ARDC or the community provide better documentation on different configs. There is a ton of documentation out there, I had to experiment and borrowed from various documents and scripts to get mine working properly. Maybe a few reference architectures would be helpful and speed adoption or a pi or vm image. If you made it this far I appreciate the read. I also very much appreciate all the hard work the TAC, BOD, ARDC Staff, and Community have put in. I recognize most are volunteers and appreciate the time and diminished sanity contributed! Thank You, Mark - K9MEV On 7/27/2021 5:31 PM, Antonios Chariton (daknob) via 44Net wrote: