Hi Rob,
On 3/26/20, 5:04 AM, "44Net on behalf of Rob Janssen via 44Net"
<44net-bounces+ak=mid.net(a)mailman.ampr.org on behalf of 44net(a)mailman.ampr.org>
wrote:
This makes the result similar to using RFC1918
addressing (which provides protection because it can only be routed locally), but without
the disadvantages that you mention.
Anyway, I am not that much concerned about that part
of the text, it will depend on local policies and we do not use that method of subnet
allocation anyway.
My main concern at this time is that "outsiders" (not licensed radio amateurs)
apparently find our network in their search for IPv4 address space, and make requests that
we have to reject.
This rejection often leads to discussion (partly because there is no
terminate-this-request option in the portal, a coordinator can only accept it or send it
back to the requester for more detail).
Therefore I think it would be best when those outsiders immediately see that this system
is not for them.
Absolutely fair points, and appreciate your taking the time for such a cogent reply to a
rather tangential point about the text covering the actual issue of concern here. __
73,
Adam