20 Apr
2018
20 Apr
'18
12:08 a.m.
Thanks for posting this. I didn't know.
Michael
N6MEF
-----Original Message-----
From: 44Net <44net-bounces+n6mef=mefox.org(a)mailman.ampr.org> On Behalf Of
Brian Kantor
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 8:48 AM
To: AMPRNet working group <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org>
Subject: Re: [44net] Echolink proxy/relay hosting
That is what the block 44.190.0.0 is set aside for. The intent is
to divide it up into /24s to be BGP-routed directly to the Internet,
and people who otherwise would send 44.x.x.x traffic via radio or
tunnel should insert a special routing rule that directs 44.190.0.0/16
to their ISP instead of the radio or tunnels, if they can.
- Brian
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 08:25:31AM -0700, Christopher S. Munz-Michielin
wrote:
I agree with Jann's comment that it would
be useful to have these services located within a dedicated allocation
to prevent Ampr-Internet routing complexity.
Chris
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net