28 Jul
2021
28 Jul
'21
5:08 p.m.
Yes not painless for me. One of my use cases for a BGP advertised
network in the 44.128/10 is that a DMR master sits within the range.
It was specifically chosen rather then a ISP's IP as the master address
would not change as it had a bit more autonomy then one provided by an
ISP which was out of our control if we wanted for example to change ISP.
The result is a very large number of repeaters spread around remote
locations in Australia most requiring 4WD access some not even
accessible until the dry season that would need to be visited to update
the repeater config via laptop.
I can do it but it's in no way painless. I might be in the minority but
for us it's not just a couple of web sites.
73
Matt.
On 7/28/21 7:40 PM, Tony Langdon via 44Net wrote:
On 28/7/21 7:08 pm, Antonios Chariton (daknob) wrote:
--
_____ _____
|___ |___ / Matt Perkins VK2FLY (advanced)
/ / |_ \ Woolloomooloo NSW (QF56od) +61403571333 matt(a)vk2fly.com
/ / ___) | A pround member of ARNSW, The WIA,
/_/ |____/ And the Waverley Amateur Radio Society.
Hello Tony, thank you very much for your e-mail!
Arrrgh, your use of Reply All and not deleting the direct email disabled
my Reply List function, it seems. :(
Indeed, some users will have to renumber under
the proposed scheme. This is why we included the statement to the Board that they will
support these users in doing so. As a side-note, most of the TAC will have to renumber to
some degree and ARDC will have to renumber its infrastructure as well.
We hope that we will give everyone adequate time to do that, so it will be as painless as
possible, but this depends on the people doing it as well, how early they will begin, etc.
Hardly painless! I have a VPS with approximately 200 active IPs on it.
A number of the services are tied to a specific IP, requiring third
party intervention to get working again, which requires a degree of
coordination One of the reasons I switched from provider commercial IPs
to 44.190.x IPs was to avoid that, as my service provider has had to
renumber a few times over the years, as his commercial arrangements changed.
This would be the most difficult transition, as I'll have more IPs than
ever before to manage, unless I do it in a few stages. I'd also be
hoping I can parse some configuration files through sed (hand editing
200 entries is error prone!). Does anyone know how many IPs a Linux box
can have on an interface?
For a renumbering of BGP space where Geolocation
is important I think it will slightly increase the time it takes, but probably not the
effort. What I would do is to get an allocation from 44.31/16 right now and change its
geolocation by notifying all the providers as soon as I begin advertising it. From my
personal experience, most providers will have updated their location within 2 weeks, but
the tail end of them will need up to three months. If geolocation is important, you can
wait for 3 months, or however much it takes for the provider you rely on to update it, and
then perform the migration within e.g. 1 or 2 months. After this is done, you can release
back the 44.190/16 space back to the pool. The TAC proposal will likely cause a lot of
changes in the geolocation landscape of the IPv4 Internet, so if there are some
particularly slow providers there, we could definitely reach out to them, inform them of
this change, and request that they update more frequently if possible.
Seems the
provider Echolink uses is near the longer end of that range. :(
Also, in case it wasn’t clear, we don’t expect
people to migrate immediately after the Board approves this. There will be a transition
period of O(months) definitely. However, it will not be a “flag day” where we go at a
specific date and time and change everything, globally. People will have to slowly migrate
at a pace they can be comfortable with. We don’t want to cause any more trouble than we
have to. The only reason to accelerate the transition is that as more and more people
migrate to their respective use case, they may adjust their routing and firewall rules,
which means that you will slowly lose reachability if you are on the “wrong” use case.
I can see why you're doing this, and on paper, it's a good idea.
Ironically, for me, the IPIP tunneled space on my LAN would be easier to
renumber!
Finally, for the record, 44.190/16 was a space
that concerned us a lot, as it’s exactly what you describe. However, most Direct BGP users
were in 44.0/10, and 44.128/10 already had multiple /16’s worth of Intranet users. About
80% of the IP addresses that respond to a ping and are exclusively available via an
Intranet reside in this block.
I hope the above answer is adequate, but I will be happy to provide more information if
needed.
It's going to be a nightmare scenario this time, the last time put my
D-STAR reflector (REF023) offline due to unanticipated complications. I
think I can avoid this one, however. Luckily, my DVSwitch and other
digital reflectors aren't in this space.
Off the top of my head, the IRLP and D-STAR reflectors require external
administrative intervention to change. The Echolink infrastructure
doesn't require outside help, just a LOT of reconfiguration, as every IP
involved has to be explicitly configured. The easiest part is the web
and normal Internet services, which just require DNS changes (a dozen or
more A records is about the size of that). Luckily I never trusted the
geolocation enough to register an Echolink relay server, otherwise I'd
have to contact them as well.
I think I've covered everything. ;)