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

I think there is a misunderstanding about preventing opeople to access the network, it's all abiut HOW they access the network. I referred to "noobs", but what I want to point out is exacly the existance of different user classes, with different capabilities. First, we have the ones with good netwoking knowledge, for which neither networking approach poses any problems. These are not the issue. Then we have those with mediocre knowledge, but willing to learn. For such users, the experiment is the interesting part, not necessary the network access itself. These also pose no special problems, and their let's say bigger brothers can help them to get on track. And finally, there are the ones I called "noobs". These users don't know why they need to access this network, and what to do with it. For them, the internet is a browser on a device, and the network is something you connect to, to get the intrnet working. This last category has basically 3 goals when trying to access the 44net: - they want to access local community resources. For this they need some kind of access (radio, HSN, VPN) provided by the local community, and an easy comprehensible configuration to get to those resources. In this case, they only need a route to the local subnet, the rest of the 44net space will be accessible to them via the regular internet, but in theur use case, that goal is secondary, since only local subnet resources are important. - they want national/regional resource accesss. In this case, again they need a network access by a connectivity provider (usually provided by hams from the first category, or a POP like the ones discussed in the 44NGN group, again provided by some bigger brother). Again as configuration, in the current allocation scheme, the national/regional space may be represented by a single subnet entry, with connectivity provided by the upstream. Again, the rest of the 44net space is accessed via the regular internet. - they want access to all of the 44net address space. This kind of users are probably rare, as the interest of a "noob" usually does not exceed national resource level. In this case, again an upstream provider is needed, and the complete network is represented by 2 static route entries, with a complete access provided by upstream. What is actually interesting is that the national/regional filtering and subnetting is actually easier done using the current allocation scheme, no matter if it is reachable via tunnel or BGP announced on the public internet, as long as the upstream provider is willing to forward those connections in the name of the user (again we speak about those POPs). So what the new allocation scheme will actually break, is the easy "geofencing" by national/regional allocation using a single top subnet, and the seamless migration from one network type to another (radio (isolated)->tunneled->direct(BGP)). It will provide a split in the address space based on the acces mode, which should be transparent to the user. Keep in mind that resources that are meant to be accessible internet-wide and are BGP announced are fully functional even without 44net client access (services like echolink proxies), so for an user running echolink on a phone, there is no need to use a 44net address. The same goes for BM/IPSC/IRLP servers, DX clusters or whatever. It becomes only important if the access is restricted to 44net addresses (like for example access to radio resources like packet nodes and other similar sensitive regions). And then, most users usually do not want access past their regional resource. On the other hand, resource access can and should be controlled by the one providing them. So, if hams want to provide services visible on the public internet, of course they can use a BGP announced 44net address space, but there is no specific advantage to these addresses, other than their availability: they behave identically to any other public IP. For low bandwidth applications, the current tunnel system together with the UCSD hosted gateway can offer almost the same services to the public internet, while offering higher speeds betweens 44net islands. These issues should be weighted in when deciding to reorganizing a well established working network hierarchy. And in my oppinion, if there are access configuration issues in certain large networks affecting "noob" users, simplifying THEIR network access should be done on THEIR border systems and in THEIR networks, without compromising the existing working network. And also the discussion on the 44NGN list should be taken in account. There are resources available on the set, some at ZERO costs, able to offer POPs, which would solve basically "noob" access by providing easy access to such users. Marius, YO2LOJ