On 10/8/21 7:23 pm, Toussaint OTTAVI via 44Net wrote:
Just to say I fully agree with the TAC proposal.
Here in Corsica, we've been experimenting such a scenario for 2 years now :
- a 44.168 "Intranet" subnet (routed locally on the island)
- a 44.190 "Internet" subnet (routed on Internet via BGP)
Looks like you're effectively doing what the TAC is proposing, but on a smaller scale, which is a good model to start from.
The only constraint for us with the TAC proposal is that we'll have to renumber our 44.190.11.0/24 to something in 44.0.0.0/10. We have 21 child prefixes and 40 IP addresses to renumber. Of course, this will require some time, but it's not as if we had thousands of addresses :-) If we don't make mistakes, all can be done remotely :-)
I've got over 200 IPs, and the most annoying part is that a couple of the addresses require manual intervention by the administrators of services (D-STAR REF admin and IRLP admins), so end users can find the new IP, and there's no scope for a "soft" cutover, it's an "either/or" scenario, and the extreme time difference involved means there will be downtime, that's unavoidable. I will also have to manage up to 400 IPs. I may be able to pare that down a bit, and have some extensive editing of configuration files - I may have to call on sed to do the legwork on that config file (it was originally built by a script for the most part). ;)
However. I am open to this complex renumbering operation, if the proposal results in a viable long term structure. I can certainly see the routing advantages, the more I think about it. So, I'm conditionally for this proposal - the condition is that it's done properly. I am one who wants both Internet and Intranet connectivity.