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@mailman.ampr.org https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net