Re: [44net] A new era of IPv4 Allocations

Gerrit, I re-iterate myself, but what you should tell them, and then actually do it, is point 44/9 and 44.128/10 towards their radio and fix hamnet. Users should only have to point the two routes 44/9 and 44.128/10 towards their radio. THAT IS IT. The Hamnet BGP enabled backbone and the pop DB0FHN should take care of the rest. **It is as simple as that.** Supposedly, from the docs linked in the proposal, DB0FHN has the connectivity to the current IPIP mesh. So what is the problem then? Maybe the rest of the 44 network that is internet only connected? Well that shouldn't have to be an issue either. Route the rest of the 44 network that is not known in the IPIP mesh (the larger /9 & /10, as more specifics will be routed to the IPIP mess peer) towards it's transit provider and you're done. I just don't get why hamnet is making such a big deal of what should be a very simple networking task.. 73 Ruben ON3RVH -----Original Message----- From: 44Net <44net-bounces+on3rvh=on3rvh.be(a)mailman.ampr.org> On Behalf Of Gerrit Herzig DH8GHH via 44Net Sent: Friday, July 30, 2021 16:31 To: 44Net general discussion <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> Cc: Gerrit Herzig DH8GHH <dh8ghh(a)darc.de> Subject: Re: [44net] A new era of IPv4 Allocations Hello Charlie, As stated earlier, I am a region coordinator for the HamNet in Germany. I have a lot of users who are using the HamNet via RF access, but they are no network technologists. They keep asking me, which route they have to set in their FritzBox to be able to reach HamNet destinations as well as internet-only destinations of the 44 net. What shall I tell them? The answer to this question is the proposed band plan. I do not understand why this is considered as a bad idea. What are you loosing by accepting this proposal? Nothing except the time needed for the necessary changes. I know the effort, we have been affected by the sale... As stated earlier, I - and most of the european HamNet users - route 44/8 via RF at the moment, which is obviously not a good idea. So please accept the proposal or provide a better solution that does not require to become an "network technologist". Renumbering to RFC1918 & RFC6598 is not a solution as Antonios already wrote in several emails. 73 de Gerrit, DH8GHH -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Charlie Smurthwaite via 44Net Sent: Friday, July 30, 2021 2:29 PM To: Mario Lorenz via 44Net Cc: Charlie Smurthwaite Subject: Re: [44net] A new era of IPv4 Allocations Apologies for more email, but I would just like to throw in my own (very simple) personal opinion on this topic. I strongly believe that the correct solution is to divide up the IP address space geographically (ie by country), and then simply give out allocations, regardless of purpose, as is the case already both with 44net and the rest of the IP address space. This gives people the flexibility to use the IP addresses in whatever way they see fit, whether that be a well known radio protocol, an experimental radio protocol, a tunnel, an experimental wired protocol, or just Amateur radio related services on the public Internet. Let the users, who are technologists after all, work out how to route traffic based on their own needs. Any attempt to artificially carve up the address space by purpose will only further confuse matters. There isn't a single unified 44 network, and not everyone who runs by RF necessarily wants to be connected to or disconnected from any other network, including the Internet. Charlie _________________________________________ 44Net mailing list 44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net _________________________________________ 44Net mailing list 44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net