29 Jul
2021
29 Jul
'21
12:20 a.m.
Thanks for answering Antonis, but I don't quite understand.
Argentina has many hundreds of 44.153.x.x hams your can see on
http://amsat.org.ar/amprhosts.txt
Many of these users have 44.153 gateways portal registrered, installed
and operational thru ip encap, with tcpip services protocols and aprs
radio and/or over internet using Rasbperries, Linux PCs or routers.
As for now no BGP are in use, that doesn't mean BGP won't be used in the future.
This network has been in succesful operation since the eighties, and
keeps on growing.
Question again is, this proposed change will afect or impair our
operation ?. Please be specific as yes or no.
Thanks,
73, lu7abf, Pedro
44.153 Coordinator
On 7/28/21, Antonios Chariton (daknob) via 44Net <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> wrote:
On 28 Jul 2021, at 18:19, Ruben ON3RVH via 44Net
<44net(a)mailman.ampr.org>
wrote:
You keep mentioning “ We have a large number of users that agree with this
statement and they want this private use case supported.” but no one was
asked, there was no poll, no onquiry,.. so how did you get the information
that a large portion of users only want an intranet?
We have approached a lot of the HAMNET communities and asked them if they
want to be routable on the Internet, and they said no. We have also reached
out to communities in the U.S. that have explained similar interest, or are
doing this today already.
Everyone I talk to, everyone that wants an
allocation here in Belgium
wants it to be publicly routable. Because that is what public ip space is
designed for.
I think that IPv4 space was designed before NAT existed. So it was actually
designed with this use case in mind: everything has a Global Unicast IPv4
address, and everything can communicate with everything else, end to end.
But I am trying to understand: if we give you publicly routable IPv4, what
is the problem with other people getting non-publicly routable IPv4? We can
foresee that we will be able to accommodate all your current and future
requests. Why is it a problem that some other people need it for a different
reason? I am really trying to understand from all these e-mails what else we
would do with the space..
Intranets should stick to rfc1918 adresses. There
is no need for an
overlap, an isp will most likely give out ip’s in the 192.168 range. I
know of no ISP that gives out ip’s in the 10 range (agreed, I don’t know
every isp) but even if they used those ip’s on their wan side that would
not conflict as the ham intranet would be routed over a different or
tunnel interface and should - never ever - be routed through or by an isp
router.
But still, what services do the current intranets offer that should be
kept offline from the public internet? And even then, it is easy to filter
those ranges at the border.
Well, the idea is that you will be able to filter them from now on! Only
accept 44.128/10 :)
You can never be sure with RFC1918 addresses because everyone can use them.
A lot of ISPs assign addresses from 10/8 to their customers, and then do NAT
behind a single IP address of hundreds or thousands of customers. So
suddenly you have to renumber any ham radio network that falls in the same
subnet. VMWare may decide to assign VMs on computers 10/8 addresses (I think
they do). Will you then renumber these people as well so people can run
VMware on computers that are part of this network? And then what if I want
to run Docker? It also uses parts of this space, too. Maybe my corporate VPN
also uses 10/8. Will we renumber every user every time some entity on the
Internet decides to use 10/8?
That’s the reason we need global uniqueness and guarantee of non-overlapping
addresses. There’s nothing technical preventing anyone for using 44.128/10
as an Intranet, and it’s the only reason we know to guarantee this
uniqueness.
I hope this answers your questions,
Antonis
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net