The relevant page has been updated with your suggested dialogue
Thanks! It is at least an attempt, let's hope it works.
Other coordinators beware: there is a hosting company owner from the Netherlands that is apparently shopping for a subnet. After I rejected him, he tried in Germany.
Rob
Hi Rob,
Care to share the name of the hosting company and individual trying?
Ruben - ON3RVH
On 25 Mar 2020, at 20:08, Rob Janssen via 44Net 44net@mailman.ampr.org wrote:
The relevant page has been updated with your suggested dialogue
Thanks! It is at least an attempt, let's hope it works.
Other coordinators beware: there is a hosting company owner from the Netherlands that is apparently shopping for a subnet. After I rejected him, he tried in Germany.
Rob _________________________________________ 44Net mailing list 44Net@mailman.ampr.org https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
On 3/25/20, 2:07 PM, "44Net on behalf of Rob Janssen via 44Net" <44net-bounces+ak=mid.net@mailman.ampr.org on behalf of 44net@mailman.ampr.org> wrote:
> The relevant page has been updated with your suggested dialogue
Thanks! It is at least an attempt, let's hope it works.
I hope it does.
One minor thing to bring up though, since I went and re-read the text. It says
"ISPs don't configure their routers with publicly routable IP space for end users, why would you?"
This is by and large false. Some do indeed use 1918 space for customer facing interfaces, but most do not, as this practice this can break PMTUD due to dropping PTB messages sent by 1918 numbered interfaces and is not generally not recommended.
--Adam
I would also caution when it comes to AMPRNet security, especially in regards to NAT configuration of public to RFC1918 address space.
"Your origin's subnet will automatically be selected as a /16 subnet however you need to enter in the actual subnet below it in which would suit your needs. Don't be greedy request what you actually need for service nodes. This would not include any 802.11 routers for use on HamWan/HamNet as doing so would make you quite insecure."
To me at least, this terminology is misleading. The layer 1 transport (wireless vs wired) has little to do with security in this sense. I think it might be beneficial to add a basic "Security" page to the wiki, detailing common best practices for operating public services.
Nate KJ7DMC
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 9:41 PM Adam Korab via 44Net 44net@mailman.ampr.org wrote:
On 3/25/20, 2:07 PM, "44Net on behalf of Rob Janssen via 44Net" <44net-bounces+ak=mid.net@mailman.ampr.org on behalf of 44net@mailman.ampr.org> wrote:
> The relevant page has been updated with your suggested dialogue Thanks! It is at least an attempt, let's hope it works.I hope it does.
One minor thing to bring up though, since I went and re-read the text. It says
"ISPs don't configure their routers with publicly routable IP space for end users, why would you?"
This is by and large false. Some do indeed use 1918 space for customer facing interfaces, but most do not, as this practice this can break PMTUD due to dropping PTB messages sent by 1918 numbered interfaces and is not generally not recommended.
--Adam
44Net mailing list 44Net@mailman.ampr.org https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
-
Adam Korab -
Nate Sales -
Rob Janssen -
Ruben ON3RVH