28 Jul
2021
28 Jul
'21
3:30 p.m.
Some remarks following
Am 28.07.21 um 21:27 schrieb Lucas Speckbacher OE2LSP via 44Net:
...
Here in Austria we use our 44.143/16 net purely for Hamnet/Intranet
purpose. Most users are not on this mailing list and simple use the
network.
I think the word "Intranet" somehow was misunderstood in this long
discussion. To point it out a little bit clearer:
Hamnet/intranet never was intended to be a fully closed network.
Obviously all hamnet-users want to talk with every other 44net-user
around the world and vice versa without any form of nat because this
could block some wanted use-cases. NAT is evil!
Therefor it is indispensable to keep those networks within the
44net-IP-range! Just to keep things simple and stupid. 1:1 mapping is no
option. It wouldn't save a single IP on the 44net-side.
...
The question I'm getting over and over again is, which Subnets should be
routed to Hamnet to reach most of it and at the same time not blocking
the Internet routed subnets. So this clear separation would clearly help
us as well.
This is one of the things to get solved and TAC-proposal is aiming at.
One of possible solutions could be: renumbering for a minority of
networks giving them a lot of time and support to do that.
In this long lasting thread I never ever have read that this would be
technically impossible. Instead I read a lot of something like: "Baaahh,
that is a lot of work" etc
Antonious pointed it out again and again why it could be better to get
more structure in the net as a first step. I dispence in repeating all
that here again. Logically it is the second step to roll out a technical
solution to keep everyone satisfied.
That is when Rob and others could enter the game. A PoP-Structure around
the world looks very interesting for me. Antonious has made it clear
that TAC is working on a solution like that. Hopefully this doesn't last
another 8 months because there has a lot of work been done and published
on this point ;-)
Finally, those OMs who have Internet routed Subnets
(outside 44.143)
would have to move, but its clearly worth the effort.
ACK
Some of us are in training as we had to move a lot of
infrastructure > after the subnet was sold.>
73
Lucas OE2LSP/KC1GDN
73s de DD9QP