30 Jul
2021
30 Jul
'21
9:27 a.m.
Hello fellows ampr users,
Just sharing analysis on ampr actual portal registrered figures:
U.S. address space 44.0/9 = 8M possible hosts = 66%
Rest of the world 44.128/10 = 4M possible hosts = 33%
Actual allocations on http://amsat.org.ar/amprhosts.txt
41,150 total allocations 100% Total, on which
7,480 U.S. allocations 18%
33,670 Rest of the world 82%
Conclusion:
US has the larger space available and fewer users
Rest of World, has a smaller space and most users
Thus rest of the world has activity and thus experience on amprnet.
Furthermore the proposed 'PoP' (Point of Presence if that is what was
implied) will be hard and costly to implement for ISPs specially on
smaller/remote countries, wonder if local ISPs will do and if ARDC
will fund PoPs on the many ISPs providing conectivity.
Should had been wiser if amprnet was heard/polled before proposing to ARDC.
73, lu7abf, Pedro Converso
44.153 Argentina Coordination
On 7/30/21, Antonios Chariton (daknob) via 44Net <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> wrote:
Hello Matt, thanks a lot for the message!
On 30 Jul 2021, at 13:11, Matt Perkins via 44Net
<44net(a)mailman.ampr.org>
wrote:
I assume there are fewer users in 44.128/10 then on hamnet and i assume
that's the reason why the 44.128/10 users are being asked to renumber.
Where i think the elephant in the room is that the hamnet users should not
be using public routed capable address space in the first place. There is
no technical reason why they should use public addresses and not RFC 6598
for example or RFC 1918. In this case RFC 6598 is more appropriate i
think as it is being natted in places onto the internet and provides a
type of utility.
My day job is in carrier internet which i have been involved with since
the early 90's. I have been evolved in everything from policy making to
nuts and bolts core network design I even have my name in some of the code
that you likely use every day as part of the internet backbone and if I
told any of my peers a bunch of hobbits were using millions of dollars of
publicly addressable internet ranges for an intranet I would struggle to
convince them i was not jokeing.
The excuse "Because we can" to squander millions of dollars worth of
resource is very hard to justify.
Now dont get me wrong im very grateful to have the resource and I will
renumber my BGP advertised to the public internet direct 44.128/10 range
if that's the consensus. But I think its very hard to justify using any
space at all for an intranet in 2021. Carriers and ISP's and enterprises
have spent that last 10 years and millions of dollars solving that exact
problem and the answer is IPv6 and RFC6598
Unfortunately, as I said in previous e-mails, we cannot use a space such as
RFC1918 or Carrier Grade NAT because it is not globally unique. There are
ISPs that use 10/8 addresses that are assigned to end users in their WAN,
and there are ISPs that use RFC6598 for their customers’ WAN connections
too. So there will be overlaps, conflicts, and problems. We absolutely have
to ensure global uniqueness and guarantee non-overlap for this to work at a
large scale. And the only way we know how to do this is with space from
44/8.
Again, going back to the similar analogy of RF spectrum: Why should we give
these “radio amateurs” so much and so valuable spectrum? Why waste literal
billions worth of it globally? If they want to communicate, they should use
the phone system or the Internet like everything else. I don’t see a reason
for them to get this tremendously expensive resource “because they can” or
“because they want to”.
Last December, Greece, a tiny country with only 10M people proceeded to rent
spectrum for 5G. They rented this spectrum for 15 years (not forever) and
only in a few bands (not across the entire thing). Just for one tiny
country, just for 15 years, just for one technology (5G) the government made
372M EUR or close to $450M. This is more money than the entire 44/8. If we
add up the cost of the entire 5G spectrum around the world, we are clearly
in the billions of dollars.
They gave a 15-year license for parts of: 3400-3800 MHz, 700 MHz, 2 GHz, and
26 GHz.
Today radio amateurs have “for free” so many more bands, so many more
allocations, so much more spectrum and bandwidth. And why? One could argue
that 5G will serve much more people and much more important use cases than
ham radio spectrum. One could also argue that a /24 on 44 net provides less
to the society as a whole than a /24 in AWS or anyone else.
Should we return all our spectrum back because we “waste millions of dollars
worth of resource”? I think we’re “wasting” not just millions with spectrum
but probably tens of billions.
Would we be happy if the FCC told our US friends that they’re taking back
all spectrum allocated to amateur radio and they can now use the frequencies
of WiFi or FM (Music) Radio if they want, as secondary users, and never
cause any interference or problems to primary users (stations or WiFi or BT
devices or microwave ovens)? Technically if they do this, they don’t “waste”
billions of dollars of space, and they can push these “intranet” people to a
shared medium. Let them then figure out an ISM band where they don’t overlap
with any other use case in this local area. Take back the dedicated
resources.
—
As you can tell, there is a large argument to be made for using 44.128/10
for the ham-to-ham communication. The reason we want radio amateurs to use
this space is because it’s theirs, and they can do whatever they want with
it. They got it allocated, so they can use it. Hopefully, unlike the real RF
spectrum, it won’t be taken back from them if they don’t…
Antonis
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net