Hello, The DNS are add or delete manually by co-admin. So yes all co-admin could. If the co-admin 44.18 do not know the procedure or have no access, i can do it if he wants. But i wait the answer of Geoff Joy ke6qh , if it can help. Best regards, Ludovic Vuillermet - F5PBG (Co-admin 44.151) Le 21/12/2022 à 05:57, Charles Hargrove via 44net a écrit :

Hello, please read my reply again... you didn't understand anything. I don't like wasting time so... all the entries was deleted. it will take effect in less than an hour (check with the command nslookup on windows/cmd) Best regards, Ludovic - F5PBG Le 21/12/2022 à 08:16, Marius Petrescu via 44net a écrit :

All, I am so angry my chest hurts. WHO the hell is F5PBG that he PREUMES to interfere with the domain assignments of another coordinator? When I made those assignments the ONLY mechanism for registering them was via the DNS assignments. I demand those entries be restored immediately! If there was a problem with those entries they were my responsibility to amend them and NO ONE ELSE! F6PBG: NOBODY ASKED YOU TO DO ANTHING AND YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT TO TAKE ANY ACTION WHATSOEVER! This is blatant deliberate corruption of the DNS database. Why are those entries even of concern? Why would anyone in France or New York have any business questioning the coordinations in California? This demonstrates a HUGE FLAW in the DNS and portal systems. They cannot be trusted to be authoritative if a coordinator can meddle in the regions administered by another coordinator. F5PBG needs to be fired and his access revoked for this intrusion. What the ever loving F! On Wed, 21 Dec 2022 10:15:46 +0100, f5pbg--- via 44net <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> wrote: -- Geoff Joy - ke6qh - AmprNet IP Address Coordinator for San Bernardino & Riverside Counties. (44.18/16)

The coordinator said that the allocation in the portal (https://portal.ampr.org/) was missing because the allocation was made and in use before the existence of a portal. Not that he could not alter/delete dns records for the subnet ;) Hence my language barrier comment. 73 Ruben ON3RVH From: f5pbg--- via 44net &lt;44net(a)mailman.ampr.org&gt; Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2022 11:23 To: Geoff Joy -KE6QH- &lt;ke6qh.2021(a)gmail.com&gt;om>; Doug via 44Net &lt;44net(a)mailman.ampr.org&gt;rg>; n2nov(a)n2nov.ampr.org Subject: [44net] Re: Allocations vs DNS Records An IP owner asks to delete his IP. We can all help. We are all in the same boat. An co-administrator indicated that he could not delete the IPs because it was before the creation of the portal. It's wrong, that's all. I just showed that it was possible. The dns have been recreated of course in less than 1 minute... Best regards, Ludovic - F5PBG Le 21/12/2022 à 10:58, Geoff Joy -KE6QH- a écrit : All, I am so angry my chest hurts. WHO the hell is F5PBG that he PREUMES to interfere with the domain assignments of another coordinator? When I made those assignments the ONLY mechanism for registering them was via the DNS assignments. I demand those entries be restored immediately! If there was a problem with those entries they were my responsibility to amend them and NO ONE ELSE! F6PBG: NOBODY ASKED YOU TO DO ANTHING AND YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT TO TAKE ANY ACTION WHATSOEVER! This is blatant deliberate corruption of the DNS database. Why are those entries even of concern? Why would anyone in France or New York have any business questioning the coordinations in California? This demonstrates a HUGE FLAW in the DNS and portal systems. They cannot be trusted to be authoritative if a coordinator can meddle in the regions administered by another coordinator. F5PBG needs to be fired and his access revoked for this intrusion. What the ever loving F! On Wed, 21 Dec 2022 10:15:46 +0100, f5pbg--- via 44net <44net@mailman.ampr.org><mailto:44net@mailman.ampr.org> wrote: Hello, please read my reply again... you didn't understand anything. I don't like wasting time so... all the entries was deleted. it will take effect in less than an hour (check with the command nslookup on windows/cmd) Best regards, Ludovic - F5PBG Le 21/12/2022 à 08:16, Marius Petrescu via 44net a écrit : Charles, Ludovic, please read the reply again. The issue is that the allocation 44.18.0.0/16 managed by Geoff can not be added to the portal because they are older than the portal and thus are invisible to you. That does not mean that the allocation is nonexistent, nor that the DNS entries are not used and should be deleted. Marius, YO2LOJ On 21/12/2022 06:57, Charles Hargrove via 44net wrote: You could submit delete entries to the Gateways robot to clean up the DNS. On 12/20/2022 11:10 PM, Geoff Joy via 44net wrote: Charles, I am coordinating the 44.18.0.0/16 area. There are no assignments evident in that area because they pre-date the AMPR portal and the database. There is no way to insert them into the database in the present implementation. It takes another complete cycle of request and reassignment to make that happen. Regards, Geoff Joy -ke6qh- On Dec 20, 2022, at 19:48, Charles Hargrove via 44net <44net@mailman.ampr.org><mailto:44net@mailman.ampr.org> wrote: ?To the AMPRnet database chief admins, is there a way to clean out the DNS database of entries if the allocation no longer exists? There is no allocation for 44.18.48.0/24 yet there are DNS records. I am sure there are many others if the database is scrubbed. 44.18.48.0 needles.ampr.org needles 44.18.48.1 ke6bbs.ampr.org ke6bbs 44.18.48.64 kd6hpk.ampr.org kd6hpk 44.18.48.65 budge.kd6hpk.ampr.org budge.kd6hpk 44.18.48.66 xerox.kd6hpk.ampr.org xerox.kd6hpk 44.18.48.67 ralph.kd6hpk.ampr.org ralph.kd6hpk 44.18.48.68 jean.kd6hpk.ampr.org jean.kd6hpk 44.18.48.69 ibmxt.kd6hpk.ampr.org ibmxt.kd6hpk 44.18.48.70 pc6.kd6hpk.ampr.org pc6.kd6hpk 44.18.48.71 pc7.kd6hpk.ampr.org pc7.kd6hpk 44.18.48.72 pc8.kd6hpk.ampr.org pc8.kd6hpk 44.18.48.73 k6krz.ampr.org k6krz 44.18.48.80 n6nxz.ampr.org n6nxz 44.18.48.82 ke6amt.ampr.org ke6amt 44.18.48.84 n6vbm.ampr.org n6vbm 44.18.48.255 bc.needles.ampr.org bc.needles -- 73 de N2NOV n2nov@n2nov.ampr.org<mailto:n2nov@n2nov.ampr.org> n2nov@n2nov.#rich.ny.usa.noam<mailto:n2nov@n2nov.#rich.ny.usa.noam> -- Geoff Joy - ke6qh - AmprNet IP Address Coordinator for San Bernardino & Riverside Counties. (44.18/16)

On Wed, 21 Dec 2022 11:23:18 +0100, &quot;f5pbg(a)free.fr&quot; &lt;f5pbg(a)free.fr&gt; wrote: I never said that. I meant to say they don't exist in the portal because they pre-date the portal by many years. The portal didn't exist when I assigned those addresses and the only way to register them in the ampr domain was to create A-records for them in the DNS. Many of my entries in the 44.18/16 date to 1995/1996. I have been in this game for a very long time and I think I know what it's about. It is not possible to create the Portal data entries because it takes a request submitted to the portal that gets handled by the coordinator for that block. A coordinator cannot self-request a block and by fiat, assign it, because that makes him both the assignee and the coordinator. When the portal was created I emailed Brian Kantor about my concerns regarding migration of the domain entries into the portal but they went unanswered. Lost in the email debris, I suppose. The DNS should have been migrated into the portal when the database was created since it was authoritative as to what IP's were allocated at that time. Now it's too late. When you corrupt the DNS as you did here, you create the potential for severe damage or loss of life. I have assigned several subnets to San Bernardino RACES and other emergency response groups who potentially rely on DNS to function and you can take those networks down in one ignorant action. Another problem I have with the portal and DNS coordination is that there is no mechanism in the portal for adding DNS entries. The DNS system is vulnerable to unauthorized or malicious changes and this is a perfect example of that. -- Geoff Joy - ke6qh - AmprNet IP Address Coordinator for San Bernardino & Riverside Counties. (44.18/16)

On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 2:48 PM Chris Smith via 44net &lt;44net(a)mailman.ampr.org&gt; wrote: Chris, For what it's worth, I interpreted the original statement to mean other amateur-radio emergency response groups. Indeed, as emcomm is one of the major use cases for amateur radio, this seems entirely consistent with use of the ARDC IP space. It could be argued that supporting emergency communications is a major part of the amateur radio endeavor; this interpretation seems inconsistent with the "purpose of Amateur Radio communications" part of the ARDC agreement. If this is indeed the case, it may make sense to call it out explicitly, in writing, in the licensing information. That's fair, but it's also qualitatively different than someone doing so due to a miscommunication; in that respect, this seems a bit tangential. It would be very odd indeed of ARDC revoked a block of address space used by an amateur radio emergency support organization for no reason other than that it could. - Dan C. (KZ2X)

On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 5:13 PM Chris Smith via 44net &lt;44net(a)mailman.ampr.org&gt; wrote: I see. So just to clarify, you are saying that it is ARDC's official position that emcomm is not an appropriate use of the 44net address space? - Dan C. (KZ2X)

On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 5:55 PM pete M &lt;petem001(a)hotmail.com&gt; wrote: I would like to hear ARDC's official position on this, please. On the one hand, I think that emcomm is strangling amateur radio to death and should be deemphasized. But on the other hand, I imagine that people who would be making use of 44net address space for this sort of thing would be doing so strictly as a backup in a multi-layer redundant comm plan. But I don't know. Regardless, we had a very officious sounding email that cited the policies around using ARDC address space; I think some additional clarity here would be beneficial and would be appreciated. Thanks and 73, - Dan C. (KZ2X)

Anyone else feels the need to bring this up to the TAC? Marius, YO2LOJ On 21/12/2022 11:58, Geoff Joy -KE6QH- via 44net wrote:

The new portal and the new allocation system in fact intends to remove that "coordinator responsible for a block" notion and makes all coordinators peers that work on the same task.  That intends to solve the problem of the "unresponsive coordinator", which is a problem that receives a lot more complaints than the "rogue coordinator" problem that we see here (which is probably just an incident). Rob On 12/21/22 11:38, Ruben ON3RVH via 44net wrote:

Hi Geoff, and anyone else this may be relevant to, I would urge you to get in touch and work with me to correct this. The bottom line is - if it’s not in the portal database, it’s free for assignment elsewhere. I was not aware of this omission, please do get in touch to discuss - there may not be an easy way to import your assignments directly on the portal, but I’m sure we can work out a way to import them into the database behind the scenes, even if all you have is a spreadsheet. 73, Chris - G1FEF

Hi David, It is most certainly the case that there are many entries in DNS that do not have corresponding entries in the portal. However, the whole point of the portal was to have a way to manage the assignments. One of Brian Kantor’s main problems was not knowing when someone no longer required an assignment - if they lose interest, they tend not to bother letting anyone know and if the worst happens and they go SK then they clearly can’t let us know. Brian’s decision was to have a cut off date of a year after the portal came online - if the end user hadn’t got in touch to claim their entry by then, the entry was considered not required. This 12 month period has long since expired (by over 8 years!) so if there is anyone that hasn’t claimed their assignment after over 8 years it is highly unlikely they will do so now, and if they do then they can always have it re-assigned. Incidentally this is the reason behind the portal removing accounts (and assignments) after 12 months of not seeing the user logging in. For anyone that is interested - the portal did originally have DNS management built in (actually it still does, it’s just disabled). Unfortunately there was no easy way of matching up DNS entries with accounts on the portal. Brian was still working on the best way to import and match the data when he left us. The new portal will have DNS management live from the start (end users will be able to manage their own entries), building on Brian’s work we’ve figured out how to match up the majority of the wanted DNS entries, but when the new portal does eventually go live, there will be a window of opportunity (probably 12 months) during which folk will be able to claim their entries, after which they will be disabled (removed from the zonefile), at that point if anyone complains things have stopped working their entries can be re-enabled and assigned to their account. After a further period (probably another 12 months) the disabled entries will be removed. We have literally thousands of DNS entries, my best guess is over 60% of them are redundant, it really does need cleaning up! So I re-iterate my request to get in touch if anyone knows of any ARDC address space that is being used that is not registered on the portal. I am more than happy to work with anyone that needs to import assignments into the portal without having to go through the formal request/approve process. 73, Chris - G1FEF

About seven years ago I wrote some python scripts for Brian that took the full ampr.org DNS zone file and: * Pulled out all the call signs. * Checked if the IP address related to the call signs had an entry in the portal database. * For those call signs that weren't in the portal database, I attempted to see if the call sign was still active by checking QRZ.com or the latest (at that time) Radio Amateur Call book ("The flying horse") database. The goal was to try to find an e-mail address and contact the amateur operator to see if they still needed the allocation. At the time over 35% of the callsigns (~14K) were not found in either database. There were many entries that did not have e-mail addresses (mostly ones from Europe that were redacted due to privacy laws). Brian decided that with so many unknowns it wasn't worth proceeding. -Neil N0SFH On Wed, Dec 21, 2022, at 1:52 PM, Tony Langdon via 44net wrote: -- Neil Johnson