Not as a whole, of course, but pieces of it. I thought we were talking about announcing bits and pieces elsewhere at the globe than at UCSD and SF Bay Area to avoid as much global tunneling as possible, or?

On 2012-03-16 19:27, Tim Pozar wrote:

(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ Ok... Pardon my confusion here. Why would 44/8 as a whole need to show up any other location? If that is needed, then some backhaul would need to happen between additional peering locations. Not saying that can be done the usual way ($$$) or via GRE tunnels (less $$$).

I thought we were talking about:

• One 44/8 BGP announcement at USD

• One or more specific peers for address space that would be used for a region. Ie. /16 for SF Bay Area that could be announced at one or more locations in the SF Bay Area. Or, say multiple /18s announced in different locations in the SF Bay Area used for those "sub-regions". ie. A /18 for the South Bay, a /18 for SF, a /18 for the East Bay, etc...

Tim

On Mar 16, 2012, at 11:16 AM, Bjorn Pehrson wrote:

...

(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ Well, right now it seems as if 44/8 is announced out of AS7377, belonging to UCSD, together with several other prefixes.

To facilitate interdomain peering at several sites on the globe, I guess there is a need for a separate public AS number for 44/8. There shouldn't be a problem getting that.

On 2012-03-16 18:55, William P.J. Bressette wrote:

...

(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________

As well all of a advertised block must me advertised only from a single asn. This is where this will start to get tricky.

Sent from my Windows Phone

---

44Net mailing list 44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net

---

44Net mailing list 44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net

Fine, thanks

On 2012-03-16 19:56, Tim Pozar wrote:

(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ Ya... We are on the same page. Thanks.

Tim

On Mar 16, 2012, at 11:54 AM, Bjorn Pehrson wrote:

...

Not as a whole, of course, but pieces of it. I thought we were talking about announcing bits and pieces elsewhere at the globe than at UCSD and SF Bay Area to avoid as much global tunneling as possible, or?

Well,

Perhaps I have jumped to conclusions believing the idea was to see AMPRnet as a network with intradomain-routing+iBGP inside and eBGP peering interdomain?

Otherwise we would just split up AMPRnet, or?

On 2012-03-17 00:09, Antonio Querubin wrote:

(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________

...

To facilitate interdomain peering at several sites on the globe, I guess there is a need for a separate public AS number for 44/8. There shouldn't be a problem getting that.

Completely unnecessary. You just need to announce more specific prefixes and negotiate transit with your upstreams.

I am not totally sure how the ASes work. Doesn't the AS sit above the other routers kind of a super router that talks to the other ASes.

if had an AS would we not then need to pay for paths to reach all of the end point networks or would you just transit back via tunnels?

my understanding it that if we(in Atlanta) want our upstream to route a 44 subnet to our router over our upstream provider.

Since we don't have a way to route all traffic globally behind the AS it would not do us much good.

Maybe I am totally wrong on how this works I have just a little info....and that makes me dangerous.

or maybe you have another reason related to the tunnel systems.

Lin

An AS is from a formal point of view just a number that you need to peer with other ASes as an independent network with your own policies, including routing policies, ethics, acceptable use policies, etc. There is no extra hardware. You use the AS-number when setting up external BGP peerings in your border router(s), in which you tell your peers what routes you want to export and whether you want transit or not, while they tell you what routes they want to import and whether they offer transit or not.

This is what is currently done in the AMPR border router at UCSD of of their AS (AS7377). And by making a traceroute to ampr.org = 44.0.0.1 you can see that AMPRnet has its transit via CENIC (Corporation for Educational Networking in California), the californian regional research and education network backbone.

If peering would be allowed elsewhere than out of the UCSD AS, you would either have to accept the policies of another local AS in your area, or use a dedicated AS for AMPRnet. The former will have an impact on what you can do and not do that would not necessarily be compatible with the goals you would like to achieve with AMPRnet. The latter definitely sounds to me as the rational thing to do if the intention is to develop AMPRnet as a global ham resource with its own policies. This is exactly what the AS concept is for and I do not see any problem for AMPRnet to get an AS-number.

Regarding tunneling, you have to differentiate between the external peering (interdomain routing) and internal peering/routing between AMPRnet subnetworks (intradomain).

if you allow external peering anywhere, the need for tunneling to the one and only border router at UCSD to go to Internet disappears since each subnet can peer with any other local network, even at a local Internet Exchange Point, and get transit to Internet locally. This means that a specific subnet will not depend on the global Internet connectivity to get to a local destination outside AMPRnet. The idea is to keep local traffic local.

The challenge is still to get all AMPRnet subnets connected iternally, intradomain. But isn't that exactly the challenge that we want to keep? To create a global ham network in parallel, but peering, with Internet based on radio links? It will most likely be easier to set up local islands than getting global internal connectivity, but that is already the case. The challenge is somewhat more manageable if we can control the routing policies and all intermediate nodes.

We can use dedicated terrestrial wireless links at different amateur frequencies, amateur satellites or maybe even some dedicated wired stretches (god forbid :-) if nothing else is available. On stretches where we by no means can come up with a dedicated link, we can still tunnel.... The internal intradomain routing can be set up statically or using an intradomain routing protocol such as OSPF in each AMPRnet island and, if needed, export routes between islands using iBGP as opposed to the eBGP functionality used in Interdomain routing.

Regarding how we are going to pay for this, I would leave that to local agreements about peering and transit. I do not know exactly what agreement is currently into effect regarding the connection between AMPRnet and CENIC, but I have good hopes that we can come up with an ethics and acceptable use policy that would be acceptable for the Swedish University network to accept peering and maybe even transit of AMPRnet, at least if the transit comes via a member university taking care of the policing. The cost would in that case most likely already be covered by the university membership fees to Sunet. The extra cost induced would be very marginal and, depending on the AUP, the purpose would already be supported. This remains to be discussed if we enter this route though.

A local ham club or individual without any contacts with a research or higher education institution could go via their commercial ISP or check if there is a local Internet Exchange Point where AMPRnet would be welcome to connect, and cover the costs, if any, themselves.

Those that cannot find an affordable agreement can still tunnel to Internet via their more fortunate colleagues...

In my mind, an important internal challenge for AMPRNET is how to avoid the fragmentation of the AMPRNET address space that would result from allowing address allocations that are used only for Internet contact without any ambition to connect internally. In such cases I have a hard time seeing the reason to use AMPRnet addresses at all. A way to meet that challenge could be to require motivations for using AMPRnet addresses, require progress reports and make all allocations time limited, and I guess that the coordination of that should be part of a delegation agreement to be signed from the AMPRnet root and down the delegation tree.

Bjorn

On 2012-03-21 03:49, Lin Holcomb wrote:

(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________

I am getting morr dangerous...doing some reading. So to have an AS we would need at minimum two ISPs connected with independent routes to the Internet via two separate Edge Routers. If we had say 12 AS located around the globe with 2 upstream providers at each AS we could independently route a global multihomed IP4 network to the internet with out any points of failure......and we could rule the world....oh sorry just slipped into a movie scene. Really that would be great and we would have a global redundant network to route radio traffic over the Internet and come out all over the world. Now how was it we were going to pay for that? Lin

---

44Net mailing list 44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net

Don, my response is in-line below

On 06/08/2012 05:45 AM, Don Fanning wrote:

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 3:15 AM, Bjorn Pehrson <bpehrson@kth.se mailto:bpehrson@kth.se> wrote:

if you allow external peering anywhere, the need for tunneling to
the one and only border router at UCSD to go to Internet
disappears since each subnet can peer with any other local
network, even at a local Internet Exchange Point, and get transit
to Internet locally. This means that a specific subnet will not
depend on the global Internet connectivity to get to a local
destination outside AMPRnet. The idea is to keep local traffic local.

Actually, the idea is to keep the traffic routed and flowing. You don't need TCP/IP if you want to keep it local.

I obviously did not meant link level-local. Call it regional then. What I meant was that the idea is not to have to go around the world to one peering point and then tunnel back through a fragmented AMPRnet if that limits the application you would like to explore.

We can use dedicated terrestrial wireless links at different
amateur frequencies, amateur satellites or maybe even some
dedicated wired stretches (god forbid :-) if nothing else is
available. On stretches where we by no means can come up with a
dedicated link, we can still tunnel.... The internal intradomain
routing can be set up statically or using an intradomain routing
protocol such as OSPF in each AMPRnet island and, if needed,
export routes between islands using iBGP as opposed to the eBGP
functionality used in Interdomain routing.

I don't see this happening for long haul at all with the hobby in it's current state. The usable bandwidth we have is all short range. The long haul frequencies are heavily clogged and QRM'ed. We don't have high apogee/geosynchronous satellites that have the capability to transport megabits of traffic.

There are Ham satellites, so why not long haul ham fiber? I have access to free capacity up to 1Gbps for strictly non-commercial use between Sweden and Latvia if anyone would be interested.

The reality is that it is cheaper and faster to use commercial networks for the long haul.

If you want commercial solutions, why use the 44/8 space? What I oppose is making 44/8 commercial since the risk is that the space is lost.

With the economy the way it is, there is no change in sight. P3E has been indefinitely been shelved and it's based on something 20 years old already. The cost of getting good repeater space is rising as the proliferation of mobile devices climb. I see the reboot of amateur packet being thicker locally with narrow corridors connecting cities. But that takes time and money. In lieu of that, there is the Internet. Hence why I don't necessarily agree with your idea of "44net has to only be routed by amateur radio operations". It's not financially feasible.

No Bucks... No Buck Rogers.

But why not use Internet then if it is just a money-problem.?

On 06/08/2012 09:50 AM, Don Fanning wrote:

I agree. However the very design of the Internet is to foster new connections among all interconnected networks to build resiliency.

Yes, there is more than one reason to have a finer mesh.

Fearing interconnectivity with non-AMPR networks excludes us from taking advantage of network routes that would lower cost. Example: If we were given free global transit over Internet2 by different educational and scientific organizations but to do that would be to resign to the requirements of said groups, would you decline?

No, I would definitely not decline, I would be happy to accept, as long as it is free for non-commercial use. I actually advocated for this solution earlier this year in this discussion. That is why I am strongly advocating looking at the Acceptable Use Policies of the global research and education networks, to combine them with the IARU and national ham rule book.

, so why not long haul ham fiber?

Because laying Fiber is very, very expensive. Companies have gone out of business doing it. There are regulatory, permits, right of way issues... Not feasible in most places. In Europe, you can connect whole cities easy enough but once you get outside the city into farmland.. the distances can get long.

Well, What is expensive is the civil works involved, so you need to share right of way and ducts/poles. I I am right now invoved in building 16 km metropolitan fibre rings in Somalia, starting with Hargeisa, using students and faculty members of Somalian universities, members of SomaliREN.

Don,

Fibre is not that expensive You can buy cable with six fiber cores for less than a USD per meter. If you only need one fibre pair. you can trade the rest in return for right of way and ducts or a permission to use someone's poles.

Regarding active equipment you can buy 1GE SFPs at ~20 USD, multiple SFP-port NICs and motherboards at ~300USD, . The capex of a complete router with 6GE ports capable of routing 700 kpps at 20W (12VDC powered, sun, wind or whatever) is less than 1kUSD.

I don't think 44/8 will ever be commercial. But you seem to think that by involving outside parties (profit or non-profit), the space will all of the sudden become eaten by mega-global-evil-corporation. There are many other companies that have their own /8 who utilize commercial/non-commercial providers for their connectivity needs. I don't think a single one has ever had their IP space *stolen* from them.

No, it is not the commercial actors I am after, they are perfectly respectable to me. It is rather the fact that the 44/8 space is a very unique resource and I fear that it will be hard to defend the privilege if the difference between the 44/8 space and the rest of Internet disappears, just as the right to use the amateur bands would disappear if we start using them commercially.

But why not use Internet then if it is just a money-problem.?

We are right now as we converse. IRLP and Echolink are sending audio streams to other RF repeaters over vast distances at this very moment because there is no direct RF path between them. It's not just a money problem, it's a feasibility problem. At some point the cost-benefit analysis tells you to stop.

You seem to forget that both IRPL and ECHOLINK use non-44/8 space a lot. It is possible to do that for other services as well and restrict the 44/8-space according to ham rules. Using 44/8 is not a necessary requirement for feasibility.

Hi Don,

More comments inline below.

On 06/08/2012 03:36 PM, Don Fanning wrote:

No, I would definitely not decline, I would be happy to accept, as
long as it is free for non-commercial use.

So here is the flaw in your logic. These educational and scientific organizations are not in the business of maintaining physical circuits. That is left to the Level3's, Vodafone's and Cogent's of the world. Each of these organizations lease circuits and dark fiber from them. None of them have laid a single piece of cable from one country to another (with perhaps the exception being CERN). They are in the business of Science! Not telecommunications. At some point you are left with peering on a commercial network broadcasting your routes.

Either I am unclear or you haven't got it. I would accept free transit from anyone, but I wouldnt trust anyone else than hams with 44/8 addresses, not even research and education networks. Free transit does not involve ham resources.

The fiber optic cable that you use to connect your server to your storage area network is not the same that goes into the ground or in the air or under the ocean. Each of those applications use different cable that is much more expensive.

Actually the fiber I am referring to can be used both underground, with or without a duct (if you have no termites eating them) and in the air (preferably above power lines to protect them from people believing it is copper inside). Submarine cables are a bit more expensive, but over distances where you can avoid active amplifiers (festoon solutions) less than ten times more. Transatantic is about 30 times more, typically 1 USD/inch.

Your analogy of using staff/students to string 16km (9 miles) of fiber while interesting and laudable doesn't apply. We're talking about 1000's of km of long haul DWDM fiber optics and the equipment to boost the signal at regular distances. Depending on where you are running it, you have to have equipment to run it through km's of conduit or across oceans where you have to deal with dragnetters.

Yes, the next phase being discussed in Somalia is to interconnect the metropolitan area links. Garowe - Mogadishu is some 2500 km and few intermediate stops. The idea is to include a free fiber pair for research and education, and why not ham activities. The main challenge is not funding but what trustworthy consortium can be formed to own it. There is an economical tradeoff between deploying more fiber and use cwdm/dwdm when there is not enough fiber. cwdm is cheap.

If multi-million dollar corporations and cities are having a hard time implementing it, what makes you think a group of blowhards wearing plastic antennas can do it better?

Well, it is often easier to do things that are guaranteed not ever to become commercial than things that definitely are commercial since everyone wants a piece of the pie. The main roles of regulators include to collect tax from the market and support public good aspects. The groups fall in different categories.

While I completely understand your position and agree with it in some aspect, the fact is that 44net itself is not a space regulated by the IARU and other than whatever your country applies to free speech, is not bound to keeping with non-commercial/non-business rules. It is a allotment of public network address space. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I am certainly aware of that 44net is not regulated by IARU, but by ICANN and that IANA and regional registries may be watching us. I am under the impression, correct me if I am wrong, that the rules applying to 44net are very unclear since the allocation is unique and that it might be better to show good conduct rather than ask or misbehave.

Has anyone asked what rules apply and what was in that case the answer?

/Bjorn

Lin,

You are definitely right. I am definitely aware of this fact but it has not come up naturally in the discussion until now. My home base is Sweden. Close to Stockholm International Airport, Arlanda. You can see my home base iGate (sa0bxi-6) at aprs.fi. I have the same challenges that you describe here and it is more or less the same in all mature markets.

I do not claim that your first strategy should be to pull your own fiber in areas where there is already enough fiber available. On mature markets, it is sometimes possible to approach infrastructure owners from a non-commercial angle to get access to redundant resources, if you have a convincing case, for "time-limited" demonstrations or operations.

This is why I have access to a dark fiber pair between Stockholm and Ventspils in Latvia. In 2003 we got a one year grant from the infrastructure owners of a then newly deployed submarine fiber cable between Stockholm and Ventspils in Latvia, a free dark fiber pair for a student project to demonstrate feasibility of the establishment of a 1GE link over close to 400 km in two hops below 30kEUR. In 2003 this was big news. We selected the fiber pair with the highest attenuation assuming that it would be redundant over a longer eriod. It is still commercially redundant, and we can still use it for non-commercial research and education purposes.

I saw Ralph saying something similar in a message that popped up here at the same time as yours, from his producer perspective.

So if AMPRNet can formulate a model for sponsoring of infrastructure, that would be great. I am still convinced, however, that the 44/8 addresses should be under ham control, separate from commercial associations that could jeopardise the conception of how it is used.

Bjoorn

.

On 06/08/2012 05:56 PM, Lin Holcomb wrote:

(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________

I think one thing you are forgeting that may not be such an issue in 3rd world countries. Property easements and rental costs on poles. I dont know about where you are but the telcos and the power companies are not going to just give away rights to drop fiber in the ground or on the poles. I think Ralph can answer the exact price per pole in the Atlanta area but it is VERY high.

Lin

On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Bjorn Pehrson <bpehrson@kth.se mailto:bpehrson@kth.se> wrote:

(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________

Hi Don,

More comments inline below.

On 06/08/2012 03:36 PM, Don Fanning wrote:

...

    No, I would definitely not decline, I would be happy to
    accept, as long as it is free for non-commercial use.


So here is the flaw in your logic.  These educational and
scientific organizations are not in the business of maintaining
physical circuits.  That is left to the Level3's, Vodafone's and
Cogent's of the world.  Each of these organizations lease
circuits and dark fiber from them.  None of them have laid a
single piece of cable from one country to another (with perhaps
the exception being CERN).  They are in the business of Science!
 Not telecommunications.  At some point you are left with peering
on a commercial network broadcasting your routes.

Either I am unclear or you haven't got it. I would accept free
transit from anyone, but I wouldnt trust anyone else than hams
with 44/8 addresses, not even research and education networks.
Free transit does not involve ham resources.

...

The fiber optic cable that you use to connect your server to your
storage area network is not the same that goes into the ground or
in the air or under the ocean.  Each of those applications use
different cable that is much more expensive.

Actually the fiber I am referring to can be used both underground,
with or without a duct (if you have no termites eating them) and
in the air (preferably above power lines to protect them from 
people believing it is copper inside). Submarine cables are a bit
more expensive, but over distances where you can avoid active
amplifiers (festoon solutions) less than ten times more.
Transatantic is about 30 times more, typically 1 USD/inch.

...

Your analogy of using staff/students to string 16km (9 miles) of
fiber while interesting and laudable doesn't apply.  We're
talking about 1000's of km of long haul DWDM fiber optics and the
equipment to boost the signal at regular distances.  Depending on
where you are running it, you have to have equipment to run it
through km's of conduit or across oceans where you have to deal
with dragnetters.

Yes, the next phase being discussed in Somalia is to interconnect
the metropolitan area links.  Garowe - Mogadishu is some 2500 km
and few intermediate stops. The idea is to include a free fiber
pair for research and education, and why not ham activities. The
main challenge is not funding but what trustworthy consortium can
be formed to own it.  There is an economical tradeoff between
deploying more fiber and use cwdm/dwdm when there is not enough
fiber. cwdm is cheap.

...

If multi-million dollar corporations and cities are having a hard
time implementing it, what makes you think a group of blowhards
wearing plastic antennas can do it better?

Well, it is often easier to do things that are guaranteed not ever
to become commercial than things that definitely are commercial
since everyone wants a piece of the pie. The main roles of
regulators include to collect tax from the market and support
public good aspects. The groups fall in different categories.

...

While I completely understand your position and agree with it in
some aspect, the fact is that 44net itself is not a space
regulated by the IARU and other than whatever your country
applies to free speech, is not bound to keeping with
non-commercial/non-business rules.  It is a allotment of public
network address space.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.

I am certainly aware of that 44net is not regulated by IARU, but
by ICANN and that IANA and regional registries may be watching us.
I am under the impression, correct me if I am wrong, that the
rules applying to 44net are very unclear since the allocation is
unique and that it might be better to show good conduct rather
than ask or misbehave.

Has anyone asked what rules apply and what was in that case the
answer?

/Bjorn

_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu <mailto:44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu>
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net

-- Lin Holcomb

Office: +1 404 806 5412 tel:%2B1%20404%20806%205412 Mobile: +1 404 933 1595 tel:%2B1%20404%20933%201595 Fax: +1 404 348 4250 tel:%2B1%20404%20348%204250

---

44Net mailing list 44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net

On 06/08/2012 07:19 PM, Don Fanning wrote:

Since when is it detrimental to make money? I'd much pay a little and have a high Quality of Service than beg and plead for free bandwidth that can be taken away easily. If it lends to the adage "when all else fails - amateur radio" then maybe it's worth putting in a couple of coins. Amateur Radio has and will very likely always will be a service without compensation. But there is no reason to take it to the extreme of anti-capitalism.

Making money is OK and paying for service is also OK, but sometimes you can for various reasons get access to resources that you cannot pay on commercial conditions to do things that you could otherwise only dream of. I see no reason why these paradigms could coexist. Just diversity in business models. It is mostly about pooling resources and it is of course something in it for all involved, but not always money. Perhaps we do not necessarily have to take everything to the extreme of capitalism either.

Agreed. Happens all the time.

Tim

On Mar 16, 2012, at 4:07 PM, Antonio Querubin wrote:

(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________

...

As well all of a advertised block must me advertised only from a single asn. This is where this will start to get tricky.

No that's not quite true. Though it's not common practice there's nothing that prevents you from announcing de-aggregated prefixes from other ASNs.

-- Antonio Querubin e-mail: tony@lavanauts.org xmpp: antonioquerubin@gmail.com _________________________________________ 44Net mailing list 44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net