I'm with Tim on these issues and I'm going to join #44net in just a moment.
Sent from my PDP-11
On Mar 6, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Tim Osburn <44net(a)osburn.com> wrote:
Brian and All,
I always thought it was a waste of a routable /8 to not have it routed on the
Internet, otherwise why are people just not using IANA space instead? However, if it is to
be routed on the internet I think some ground rules must be established of what is and is
not acceptable and penalties for not following the rules and established guidelines.
Additionally, and I bring this up again, a RWHOIS server should/must be used (tied in
with ARIN on the 44/8 allocation) so that people can query specific address space that
will return the contact/owner of whatever space is being advertised for whatever reason.
Additionally, IRR entries should also be required for anyone wanting to advertise space
via BGP. Those should be some common sence polices that need to be followed at the very
minimum.
Obviously nothing smaller then a /24 should be advertised on the internet as most Tier
1 carriers will block any address space that is smaller in their BGP configs. I don't
know what the whole breakup of space looks like within each coordinator's /16 space
(for those that have a /16 of space), but I would think there surely is space in each that
could be a usable /24 or larger that could be utilized for that. Alternatively there seems
to be a lot of space at the upper end of the 44 block that could be used for internet
routed blocks if we wanted to use that first?
IP Space justification will be whole issue within it's self as well, because if
you only REALLY need /28 or /27 of IP's, one will still need to advertise a /24.
Perhaps who ever advertises space via BGP should accept the condition that if only a
portion of the advertise space is being used that you will accept and allow another person
needing the available space so that it's not wasted. This could be tracked and
allocated via the rwhois server in conjunction with entries in IRR.
UCSD can still advertise the 44/8, and of course if anyone advertises a more specific
route, that will be preferred of the larger aggregate.
Be nice if we were all on a IRC chat channel to bounce ideas around? If anyone is
interested, how about channel #44net on IRC server network freenode (
irc.freenode.net).
I'm on there now.
Tim Osburn
www.osburn.com
206.812.6214
W7RSZ
On Tue, 6 Mar 2012, Brian Kantor wrote:
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 11:14:57 -0800
From: Brian Kantor <Brian(a)ucsd.edu>
Reply-To: AMPRNet working group <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu>
To: 44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
Subject: [44net] directly routed subnets
I've gotten several requests for directly routed subnets (ie, BGP announced CIDR
blocks as subnets of 44/8, not tunneled) for ham radio use. These are people who want to
set up HSMM networks in the ham bands, D-Star constellations, etc.
I thought I'd ask folks what they think of the idea of setting aside part of the
address space for that purpose?
What issues do you see arising from doing so?
- Brian
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net