On 15/08/2016 7:14 PM, Rob Janssen wrote:

But we have a large IPv4 space available so why would we battle with NAT??? It should not be a problem to get an IPv4 address from net-44 for any of your experiments and not have to use NAT.

Net44 suffers from high latency and non optimal routing, because of its largely tunneled architecture. While great for general data exchange (I ise XMPP over AMPRNET with no issues, for example), it's not as good for time critical applications such as VoIP (IRLP, Echolink, etc).

Not that I am against experimenting with IPv6, but I am not sure which way that should go:

• somehow get an "own" IPv6 range that we can manage in a similar way as the net-44 space

• just use the IPv6 space everyone can get from their local provider and have only DNS support for it in ampr.org and maybe some service for

listing of prefixes in use on ampr hosts to be used in firewall address lists.

Having an own range appears nice, but it means we will again have the problems with internet tunneling and BGP routing that we are having now.

I think with much larger address space and the availability of /56 or larger spaces for many connections means many of us already have excess, the second approach is worth investigating. Come up with DNS management and a system for automatically configuring AMPRNET6 routers to share trust information to tie the network together securely. As I said before, I could easily allocate part of my /56 to this project. I'm using less than 1% of my address range (1/256th to be exact :) ).