31 Mar
2014
31 Mar
'14
12:14 a.m.
-----Original Message-----
From: 44net-bounces+marius=yo2loj.ro(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
[mailto:44net-bounces+marius=yo2loj.ro@hamradio.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Eric
Fort
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 05:12
To: Don Fanning; AMPRNet working group
Subject: Re: [44net] isn't 44net being a "full mesh" a misnomer? Is it even
necessary?
...
If this is, " a hack to backbone a semi-private
network on top of the
public internet" then why do we need 44/8? Please explain why 10/8 would
not work just as well?
With 10/8 or other true private IPs you can not have a public gateway.
Actually the whole 44/8 is accessible as a stub network via amprgw, and is
routable.
Just not each island directly.
Also, most links are point to point and connect various
networks, or did I
again, if it's not going to be routable then why do we need 44/8? use
RFC1918 space and give 44/8 back. The easiest way to get things routable
is to use a dynamic routing protocol and peer with others using standards
based routing protocols and practices. That involves using working with
others to peeer with protocols such as OSPF and BGP. We could attract many
i>nto
this hobby if we'd simply offer to be the teachers of the IP
networking craft using standards based methods used by
everyone else across
the internet.
First, what would be the benefit of giving it back?
And second, no one is stoping anyone from direct peering and usage of
dynamic routing protocols, kipping IPIP.
It is done in a lot of places (see on, de, oe, i). IPIP is just one of many
solutions, but is resolves the need for individual arrangements between
subnet operators.
And it is dynamic via RIP/encap.
For the ham network to be global, a central coodination and peer info
distribution is needed anyway, no matter the peering method.
73s de Marius, YO2LOJ