31 Jul
2021
31 Jul
'21
2:35 a.m.
On 7/30/21 20:12, R P via 44Net wrote:
I couldnt find the initial proposal but i ask
"You can find our 5-page PDF here: https://pdf.daknob.net/ardc/tac128.pdf
<https://pdf.daknob.net/ardc/tac128.pdf>"
why to separate the two network ? why to make any
restriction to any network ?
every one will put any rules he want on the firewall he probably have in his network
and live with that
what is the big need to separate the networks ? i really dont understand
Ronen-4Z4ZQ
I still don't either Ronen, I've gone through the emails from today again.
I believe all the use-cases in the proposal could be solved in a much
cleaner and less disruptive manner, resulting in a much more modern and
flexible solution that could meet everyone's use case, by adopting what
PE1CHL proposed two days ago.
There was a suggestion that the current proposal doesn't want to
restrict what operators want to do, but it clearly does, it will prevent
someone in the 44.128/10 talking to their buddies in the 44.0/9 space.
The obvious answer is that one of them has to renumber, but why should they?
At the moment if 44.155.X.X doesn't want to receive any traffic from non
44 space, some relatively simple iptables rules prevent any traffic
reaching them, yet they can still access their buddies on 44 net that do
want to receive traffic from.
There was also question/comment about polling and talking to users and
co-ordinators. It seems a lot of the co-ordinators on this list were
quite obviously not communicated with.
Regards
John
EI7IG