29 Jul
2021
29 Jul
'21
12:22 a.m.
On 7/28/21 7:06 PM, Antonios Chariton (daknob) via 44Net wrote:
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..
The problem with your proposal is not that you have different options for different
tastes, but that you hardwire them into the IP range.
And, that you have decided to stamp the 44.128.0.0/10 range, where several "internet
routed" networks exist, as "intranet".
Sure when you only decided to make the changes you describe above, I could not care less.
Make your own net an intranet if you like, cut all internet connects if you want.
But what you do now is saying "hey you users in Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, ....
you all have to renumber your network because we have some ideas on how to simplify the
routing for some imaginary kind of new users".
That part of the proposal is unwanted.
Had you said "44.0.0.0/9 odd networks that are currently unused will now be for
intranets", I would not have so much of a problem with it.
Because then everyone can decide whether they want to move or not.
That is why I keep coming back with "drop this proposal, make a working backbone that
incorporates the difficult routing rules, and have the users connect to that".
(the users that do not want to investigate the routing, I mean. of course there should
still be the option to communicate directly or to do routing)
There is no need to change things just because some people told you they want simpler
access and you could only think of a single way to provide that.
Ask here what other ways there are.
Rob