28 Jul
2021
28 Jul
'21
6:44 p.m.
Just going to throw my 2 cents in here; as many others have said I think
this is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist; in fact it sounds
like the TAC is going out of their way to invent a problem so they can
provide a solution to it. Any non-routed networks can be easily carved
out of RFC1918 space or possibly even out of CGNAT space
(100.64.0.0/10). Any networks that require unique addressing can be
allocated out of the appropriate 44.x blocks - nothing is saying they
need to be BGP routed or participate in the IPIP mesh, they can simply
exist offline. I don't understand why we need to waste a huge block of
address space for this.
Part of the network I help to operate exists on both RF and BGP. Under
this new proposal it sounds like we would need to have 2 allocations -
one routed and one not routed, and then assign 2 addresses to each
device on our network, so that they can access the public Internet as
well as the RF network. How does that make sense?
As an operator of 2 BGP subnets within 44.135.0.0/16 as well as some
Echolink space in 44.190.0.0/16, not looking forward to this impending
renumbering.
Chris
VE7ALB
On 27/07/2021 15:31, Antonios Chariton (daknob) via 44Net 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