29 Mar
2014
29 Mar
'14
1:16 p.m.
I found a statement on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMPRNet that says:
44.128.0.0/16[edit<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AMPRNet&…
]
*44.128.x.x* is the testing subnet and consists of 65,536 (216) addresses.
Much akin to 10.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12, 169.254.0.0/16 or 192.168.0.0/16,
this is an unroutable private IP
block<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_network>rk>.
Connectivity to the rest of the network should be given through router
gateways <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_(telecommunications)> much
as one would do with Network address
translation<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_address_translation>
in
any other private IP block.
Is this truly the case? When I look at the portal, this /16 would be
towards the end of the US allocations, and just before the Japan
allocations.
If this is not true, do we have a Private block in the 44/8 for use that is
not routable?
--
Rod Ekholm
kc7aad(a)gmail.com
29 Mar
29 Mar
5:31 p.m.
Yes, 44.128.0.0/16 is a private block within 44.0.0.0/8. We use it
regularly but don't expose the usage on the network.
73,
Jann
On 29.03.2014 07:16, Rod Ekholm wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
I found a statement on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMPRNet that says:
44.128.0.0/16[edit<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AMPRNet&…
]
*44.128.x.x* is the testing subnet and consists of 65,536 (216) addresses.
Much akin to 10.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12, 169.254.0.0/16 or 192.168.0.0/16,
this is an unroutable private IP
block<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_network>rk>.
Connectivity to the rest of the network should be given through router
gateways <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_(telecommunications)> much
as one would do with Network address
translation<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_address_translation>
in
any other private IP block.
Is this truly the case? When I look at the portal, this /16 would be
towards the end of the US allocations, and just before the Japan
allocations.
If this is not true, do we have a Private block in the 44/8 for use that is
not routable?
--
Jann Traschewski, Faber-Castell-Str. 9, D-90522 Oberasbach, Germany
Tel.: +49-911-696971, Mobile: +49-170-1045937, E-Mail: jann(a)gmx.de
Ham: DG8NGN / DB0VOX, http://www.qsl.net/dg8ngn
8:13 p.m.
On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 23:16:57 -0700, Rod Ekholm <kc7aad(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
I found a statement on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMPRNet that says:
44.128.0.0/16[edit<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AMPRNet&…
]
*44.128.x.x* is the testing subnet and consists of 65,536 (216) addresses.
Much akin to 10.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12, 169.254.0.0/16 or 192.168.0.0/16,
this is an unroutable private IP
block<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_network>rk>.
Connectivity to the rest of the network should be given through router
gateways <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_(telecommunications)> much
as one would do with Network address
translation<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_address_translation>
in
any other private IP block.
Is this truly the case? When I look at the portal, this /16 would be
towards the end of the US allocations, and just before the Japan
allocations.
If this is not true, do we have a Private block in the 44/8 for use that is
not routable?
Historically that statement is true. It's a reservation within a
reservation. 44.128/16 was set aside before the advent of NAT and
inexpensive SOHO routers. I believe the intent was to provide address
space for experimental protocols or a space that could be utilized
without coordination that could be globally blocked by all
non-participating hosts. I don't believe the space is hard-coded
non-routable so there could very easily be escapes if the original
border isn't properly configured.
If I remember correctly, Net44 was assigned to ampr.org with the
express agreement that it was to remain unconnected from the routable
Internet since peering was expensive (and still is) and the IETF
didn't want an "experimental" network tramping over the wired net.
In my opinion, this reservation need not exist. One could just as
easily use Net10 for the purpose and confine that address space much
more reliably.
Brian can probably explain the rationale he had in mind at the time.
--
Geoff Joy - ke6qh -
AmprNet IP Address Coordinator for San Bernardino & Riverside Counties.
geoff(a)windomeister.com
9:34 p.m.
On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 06:13:58AM -0700, Geoff Joy wrote:
If I remember correctly, Net44 was assigned to
ampr.org with the
express agreement that it was to remain unconnected from the routable
Internet since peering was expensive (and still is) and the IETF
didn't want an "experimental" network tramping over the wired net.
I'm unaware of any such agreement. At the time of the initial allocation,
there were many experimental networks. As far as I know, we've always
been allowed to connect to the main internet.
[44.128]
Brian can probably explain the rationale he had in mind at the time.
It was much as you surmised, an experimental area that wouldn't escape
and cause problems. I don't see a need for us to reassign it for other
uses anytime soon.
- Brian
3921
days inactive
3921
days old
3 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Brian Kantor -
Geoff Joy -
Jann Traschewski -
Rod Ekholm