28 Jul
2021
28 Jul
'21
12:42 p.m.
Hello David, thank you for your e-mail. Please find my replies below:
On 28 Jul 2021, at 15:59, David McGough, KB4FXC via
44Net <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> wrote:
Hi Everyone,
As a casual observer and out of curiosity, I looked over the proposed TAC
document and I'm left puzzled as to what REAL problem this proposal is
attempting to resolve??
In this day and age of very inexpensive, commodity ARM-processor based
computers (like the RPi4B or Rock64, etc.), the notion that cheap routers
have insufficient resources to maintain large dynamic (or even static!)
routing tables and quickly route traffic, leaves me completely
baffled--since I already do this all the time.
It’s true that this is possible and that modern devices can for cheap (for what I or you
at least consider cheap, that’s not the same for everyone) perform routing using dynamic
protocols like BGP. We’re not saying they can’t.
The REAL problem we try to solve is to decrease the barrier of entry to the network as
much as possible, and allow as many people to join, as easy as possible. We also want the
people that join to be free to do whatever they went, with only a few rules, so they can
experiment and learn. We don’t think that 100% of the network must be a super good,
production-ready network, centrally managed, with a good SLA. We think that we should
provide the addresses and some basic infrastructure (for people that just want to
connect), and then with these tools in the hands of everyone around the world, just sit
back and watch what they can create.
We want to provide people with vision and ideas the tools, and then get out of their way,
and look at what they’re able to do with it.
Also, I really don't understand why in this day
and age of scarce IPv4
space, anyone would want to make a new, private, non-Internet available
block?? I realize the original intentions and the purpose behind the 44/8
allocation. With the absolute explosion of directly ham-radio oriented
IoT devices, I would argue that Internet routable "experimenters" space is
more important now than ever.
As I have explained in earlier e-mails, we do not currently face any scarcity, with either
the current or the proposed policy, for the foreseeable future. We are one of the lucky
groups to have received a /8 network which included more IPv4 addresses than there are
radio amateurs around the world. The primary reason we want to use 44.128/10 for this use
case is because it’s the only way to guarantee that Intranet users will receive a
non-overlapping and globally unique space. And after looking at the numbers, we are
convinced that we can *afford* to do this.
I see many people that don’t want to use 44.128/10 for the Intranet, but I do not
understand this: do you prefer to have the IPv4 space sit, and not be used, and collect
dust (or Internet radiation) instead of letting other fellow radio amateurs use it? Why is
that? What do we gain by having a /10 (2 actually) sit and not be used if we already have
people (most users now?) that want to use it? Am I missing something?
Antonis