I found a statement on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMPRNet that says:
44.128.0.0/16[edithttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AMPRNet&action=edit§ion=2 ]
*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 blockhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_network. 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 translationhttp://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?
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[edithttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AMPRNet&action=edit§ion=2 ]
*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 blockhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_network. 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 translationhttp://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?
On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 23:16:57 -0700, Rod Ekholm kc7aad@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[edithttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AMPRNet&action=edit§ion=2 ]
*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 blockhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_network. 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 translationhttp://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.
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
-
Brian Kantor -
Geoff Joy -
Jann Traschewski -
Rod Ekholm