44.x.x.x
IS routable. The fact that some parts of it are not is a specific "feature" of
44 usage, implementation and geographic distribution.
You
can reach 44 hosts from the public internet (via ucsd.edu - but this is
nothing special, every subnet has somewhere one or more specific routing
points).
10.x.x.x
(together with 192.168.x.x, 172.16-31.xx.xx and 169.254.0.0) is not routable.
Every provider taropits/drops private and link-local IPs, since their
uniqueness can not be ensured. And this means that 10.x.x.x addresses will
NEVER be reachable except if tunneling is used.
From:
44net-bounces+marius=yo2loj.ro@hamradio.ucsd.edu
[mailto:44net-bounces+marius=yo2loj.ro@hamradio.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of
Lin Holcomb
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 19:13
To:
AMPRNet working group
Subject: [44net] 44net is not just for
tunneling
I am still in the holding pattern while ya'll work out
things, but I share Ralphs frustration. I see tunneling as a project
that uses 44net not the whole 44net project. It seems to me that this
has been confused by many and sent the 44net down one
road. We need some highways and not 2 lane dirt roads, sorry but
1200baud or even 9600 baud is a two land dirt road compaired
to 10-300 meg connections I can offer I spoke to several groups
at Dayton and there are many others who would love to have use of the IP
addresses Dstar, highspeed packet ect. (not tunneling all thru
UCSD)
The inability to have routeabil addresses from the
net back to the 44net( or the lack of desire do to the slow
speeds) raises this question how is it that the current tunneling network
would be different if the 44.x.x.x was replaced with a 10.x.x.x and the
route point at UCSD was a 44.x.x.x ? Really what advantage does a
non-routabile 44 have over a 10 with the way you are currently using the
network?
From perspective I see no
difference....If I cant see a difference why would ICANN?
Folks this is 1/255 off all of the ipv4 addresses in the world we are
talking about. This is like 220 in the 80s use it or loose
it.