28 Jul
2021
28 Jul
'21
8:07 p.m.
Dear fellow AMPR/Coordinator & user,
As stated on https://pdf.daknob.net/ardc/tac128.pdf proposed change
will apply to 44.128/10 which means:
From 44.128.0.0 to 44.191.255.555 Check:
http://ccna.exampointers.com/sub.php
Our Argentina 44.153/16 will fall into this as many other countries.
Quoting https://pdf.daknob.net/ardc/tac128.pdf (pg.4)
'Interestingly, the use case defined above requires some guarantees
from the people using it 44.128/10 for it to work better than today:
it needs to be “isolated”. That means that IP addresses outside of the
range cannot talk to it.'
Interesting enough 44.0/10 has none of this restrictions. Allowing
Internet-connected purposes and explicily stating 'if you want to join
the Intranet and also be on the Internet, you will need to receive two
allocations: one in each part of the space.'
Seems that this proposal is on the way into hampering and/or loosing
44.128/10 allocation in the future, and what next? perhaps all 44's.
This said, we strongly oppose presenting this proposed change, warning
users of 44.128/10 to analyze and react accordingly.
73, lu7abf, Pedro Converso
44.153 Coordinator as well as
The actual registrered 899 users on 44.153.x.x
Seen on http://amsat.org.ar/amprhosts.txt
On 7/28/21, Jacob Slater via 44Net <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> wrote:
All,
As many others have said, the proposal comes across as a solution in search
of a problem. Renumbering devices - especially those at sites that I don't
routinely access - will be needlessly expensive, time consuming, and
painful, especially for those of us with sites that are difficult to access.
On radio networks, blocking ICMP (along with most other traffic) from
unknown hosts should not be unexpected behavior. I don't think the
methodology is inherently sound (not that it makes a huge difference).
For what it is worth, I am opposed to the changes as written.
Jacob Slater / K5AN
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021, 15:34 Antonios Chariton (daknob) via 44Net <
44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> wrote:
Fellow radio amateurs, I am writing to you on
behalf of the ARDC TAC,
which I represent.
Those of you that were on our Community Call last Saturday may remember
that I promised you we would share our first proposal with the community.
A
few days after that, I am happy to send that to you for your review,
feedback, comments, questions, and information!
You can find our 5-page PDF here: https://pdf.daknob.net/ardc/tac128.pdf <
https://pdf.daknob.net/ardc/tac128.pdf>
The title is "ARDC 44.128/10 Allocation Proposal” and it briefly explains
what we propose to do with the IPv4 space of ARDC. It is based on careful
consideration, planning, and actual research[1] performed on the IP
network
and the Portal allocations.
Since the TAC does not have any authority on the IP (or any other)
resources of ARDC, and we only have an advisory role, we end this document
with a proposed resolution we intend to submit soon to the ARDC Board of
Directors, where we urge them to vote and approve some key things required
for us to be able to achieve what is described.
We believe that the TAC represents the community and the 44 Net users, so
we created this document and post it here in advance, with the purpose of
being able to answer your questions, collect your feedback, and hear from
you. This is why we briefly explain the situation in about 4 pages, and
then we end with the resolution we want the ARDC Board of Directors to
approve.
I hope you like it, and I remain at your disposal for anything you may
need.
Antonis
Links:
[1] - https://blog.daknob.net/mapping-44net/ <
https://blog.daknob.net/mapping-44net/>
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net