28 Jul
2021
28 Jul
'21
6:36 a.m.
Seems like a waste of a /10 to never route and never announce it to the
internet by policy, especially with the current scarcity of IPv4 addresses.
It should be up to the coordinator of assigned 44 net space to decide if
they want to announce their network to the Internet or not. It should
always be an option to start or stop announcing a block at any time for
any reason, without having to renumber entire networks with possibly
hundreds of users and thousands of machines. Firewalling and routing
policies are also a tool that coordinators or operators can use to steer
or block traffic.
With this proposal a machine would require at least two IP addresses
from two different networks (with additional overhead for subnet,
router, broadcast addresses) just to have connectivity to both. This
doesn't help with the limited amount of addresses we have. It would also
make it impossible for devices and routers to automatically choose the
most optimal path towards a machine, whether it is via a radio link, the
internet or a tunnel. This means we would need more address space, and
we are not benefiting from the advantages of multi homing.
44.137.0.0/16 for example already shows that a network that connects
both to the internet and to a local radio network works perfectly fine.
Users only need 1 IP address for a single machine to have connectivity
to the internet and to the radio network.
There also seems to be a lot more announcements in 44.128.0.0/10 (876
prefixes) than in 44.0.0.0/10 (533 prefixes) or 44.64.0.0/10 (340
prefixes), so your statement that most current Intranet users reside on
44.128/10, and that most Internet-connected users reside on 44.0/10 is
not true.
Regards,
PH5X
On 28-07-2021 00:31, Antonios Chariton (daknob) via 44Net wrote:
Fellow radio amateurs, I am writing to you on behalf
of the ARDC TAC,
which I represent.
Those of you that were on our Community Call last Saturday may
rememberthat I promised you we would share our first proposal with the
community. A few days after that, I am happy to send that to you for
your review, feedback, comments, questions, and information!
You can find our 5-page PDF here:
https://pdf.daknob.net/ardc/tac128.pdf
<https://pdf.daknob.net/ardc/tac128.pdf>
The title is "ARDC 44.128/10 Allocation Proposal” and it briefly
explains what we propose to do with the IPv4 space of ARDC. It is
basedon careful consideration, planning, and actual research[1]
performed on the IP network and the Portal allocations.
Since the TAC does not have any authority on the IP (or any other)
resources of ARDC, and we only have an advisory role, we end this
document with a proposed resolution we intend to submit soon to the
ARDC Board of Directors, where we urge them to vote and approve some
key things required for us to be able to achieve what is described.
We believe that the TAC represents the community and the 44 Net users,
so we created this document and post it here in advance, with the
purposeof being able to answer your questions, collect your feedback,
and hear from you. This is why we briefly explain the situation in
about 4 pages, and then we end with the resolution we want the ARDC
Board of Directors to approve.
I hope you like it, and I remain at your disposal for anything you may
need.
Antonis
Links:
[1] - https://blog.daknob.net/mapping-44net/
<https://blog.daknob.net/mapping-44net/>
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net