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@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@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%3E
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/%3E
44Net mailing list 44Net@mailman.ampr.org https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
44Net mailing list 44Net@mailman.ampr.org https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net