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

I assume there are fewer users in 44.128/10 then on hamnet and i assume that's the reason why the 44.128/10 users are being asked to renumber. Where i think the elephant in the room is that the hamnet users should not be using public routed capable address space in the first place. There is no technical reason why they should use public  addresses and not RFC 6598 for example or RFC 1918.  In this case RFC 6598 is more appropriate i think as it is being natted in places onto the internet and provides a type of utility. My day job is in carrier internet which i have been involved with since the early 90's. I have been evolved in everything from policy making to nuts and bolts core network design I even have my name in some of the code that you likely use every day as part of the internet backbone and if I told any of my peers a bunch of hobbits were using millions of dollars of publicly addressable internet ranges for an intranet I would struggle to convince them i was not jokeing. The excuse "Because we can" to squander millions of dollars worth of resource is very hard to justify. Now dont get me wrong im very grateful to have the resource and I will renumber my BGP advertised to the public internet direct 44.128/10 range if that's the consensus.  But I think its very hard to justify using any space at all for an intranet in 2021. Carriers and ISP's and enterprises  have spent that last 10 years and millions of dollars solving that exact problem and the answer is IPv6 and RFC6598 73 -- _____ _____ |___ |___ / Matt Perkins VK2FLY (advanced) / / |_ \ Woolloomooloo NSW (QF56od) +61403571333 matt(a)vk2fly.com / / ___) | A pround member of ARNSW, The WIA, /_/ |____/ And the Waverley Amateur Radio Society.