6 Jun
2012
6 Jun
'12
2:42 a.m.
Hi Heikki,
The discussion on policy and regulatory framework is of course important
to avoid making decisions on technical details that may later turn out
not be consistent with the general goals.
Since we want to keep unique privileges for the ham community, and even
extend them with more unique privileges, I strongly believe that the
best, simplest and cheapest way to go is to have an independent AS, to
give a single very clear message about policy and regulation concerning
AMPRnet, unmixed with other interests. This facilitate communicating
the vision, objectives and goals immensely.
You can still announce different delegations at different locations, one
or more per region, country, or whatever.
If AMPRnet intradomain links will be required to be under ham control,
we will have to, and I would say want to, live with a fragmented
AMPRNet. This is one of the main motives for multihoming. This should be
combined with drivers of intra-domain connectivity to interconnect
enclaves. Examples of such drivers could include both carrots and
sticks, such as contests with prizes and minimum progress required to
keep a delegation.
Bjorn
On 2012-06-06 07:47, Heikki Hannikainen wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
On Tue, 5 Jun 2012, Bjorn Pehrson wrote:
Splitting up the address space by delegations of
smaller chunks to
commercial service providers with different AS-numbers and policies
will lead to a historical mistake.
I would see the choice between using local AS numbers for the
announcements (be it commercial or non-commercial) vs. using a single
AS "just" a technical detail about the future network design.
The policy issue is a separate thing, and the delegation agreements
and policies can be quite the same, regardless of the technical
solution to do the announcements.
1: Do we wish to allow a larger amount of sites (like, one per
country, or more) to locally announce their prefixes on the Internet?
Ok, allow them to announce their delegations from whatever local AS
the local network admins have access to, possibly reusing existing
routers and peering agreements, just adding the prefix to the routing
policies. It's quite lightweight to set up (at least, it would be for
us here) and can be done incrementally (some sites can set it up while
the others keep on doing what has been done before). I would imagine
us announcing Finland (44.139/16), routing it to RF, and tunneling it
locally to other local gateways.
2: Or do we wish to go for a smaller amount of sites (less than one
per country) announcing the whole 44/8 to reduce load and dependence
on UCSD? Ok, get an AS, routers to run it at those sites, arrange IGP
connectivity within the AS (probably tunnels again), and innovate
tunneling solutions to distribute traffic further from those points to
the end users. I don't see the intra-AS (IGP) connectivity happening
without tunnels any time soon - availability of long-range
high-bandwidth radio links would require pretty advanced innovation.
It's possible to do both of those. AS for AMPRnet to do the /8
announcements from more than one site, and local announcements for
those sites who wish to have traffic routed from the Internet directly
to the site / country without passing one of the AMPRnet AS routers /
tunnel brokers.
- Hessu, OH7LZB
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
.