4 Jun
2012
4 Jun
'12
11:12 a.m.
I am still in the holding pattern while ya'll work out things, but I share
Ralphs frustration. I see tunneling as a project that uses 44net not the
whole 44net project. It seems to me that this has been confused by many
and sent the 44net down one road. We need some highways and not 2 lane
dirt roads, sorry but 1200baud or even 9600 baud is a two land dirt road
compaired to 10-300 meg connections I can offer I spoke to several groups
at Dayton and there are many others who would love to have use of the IP
addresses Dstar, highspeed packet ect. (not tunneling all thru UCSD)
The inability to have routeabil addresses from the net
back to the
44net( or the lack of desire do to the slow speeds) raises this question
how is it that the current tunneling network would be different if the
44.x.x.x was replaced with a 10.x.x.x and the route point at UCSD was a
44.x.x.x ? Really what advantage does a non-routabile 44 have over a 10
with the way you are currently using the network?
From perspective I see no difference....If I cant
see a difference
why would ICANN? Folks this is 1/255 off all of the ipv4 addresses in the
world we are talking about. This is like 220 in the 80s use it or loose
it.
Lin
4 Jun
4 Jun
2:14 p.m.
44.x.x.x IS routable. The fact that some parts of it are not is a specific
"feature" of 44 usage, implementation and geographic distribution.
You can reach 44 hosts from the public internet (via ucsd.edu - but this is
nothing special, every subnet has somewhere one or more specific routing
points).
10.x.x.x (together with 192.168.x.x, 172.16-31.xx.xx and 169.254.0.0) is not
routable. Every provider taropits/drops private and link-local IPs, since
their uniqueness can not be ensured. And this means that 10.x.x.x addresses
will NEVER be reachable except if tunneling is used.
From: 44net-bounces+marius=yo2loj.ro(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
[mailto:44net-bounces+marius=yo2loj.ro@hamradio.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Lin
Holcomb
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 19:13
To: AMPRNet working group
Subject: [44net] 44net is not just for tunneling
I am still in the holding pattern while ya'll work out things, but I share
Ralphs frustration. I see tunneling as a project that uses 44net not the
whole 44net project. It seems to me that this has been confused by many and
sent the 44net down one road. We need some highways and not 2 lane dirt
roads, sorry but 1200baud or even 9600 baud is a two land dirt road
compaired to 10-300 meg connections I can offer I spoke to several groups
at Dayton and there are many others who would love to have use of the IP
addresses Dstar, highspeed packet ect. (not tunneling all thru UCSD)
The inability to have routeabil addresses from the net back to the 44net( or
the lack of desire do to the slow speeds) raises this question how is it
that the current tunneling network would be different if the 44.x.x.x was
replaced with a 10.x.x.x and the route point at UCSD was a 44.x.x.x ?
Really what advantage does a non-routabile 44 have over a 10 with the way
you are currently using the network?
From perspective I see no difference....If I cant see a difference why
would ICANN? Folks this is 1/255 off all of the ipv4 addresses in the world
we are talking about. This is like 220 in the 80s use it or loose it.
Lin
2:34 p.m.
Marius, that is exactly what he said.
If all you are doing is tunneling, then tunnel away. using private
addresses.
I think you may have thought he misunderstood private addresses.
What he is proposing (and I also mentioned) is not tying up all the
addresses and limiting accessibility to some box Brian has stashed in a
corner at UCSD.(figure of speech)
If something happens to it, or him, then the system is dead. Correct me if
I am wrong, but UCSD is the ONLY routing point. I doubt UCSD even knows
that it is being used as the gateway for this entire 44 net.
There are hundreds of thousands of IP addresses being tied up for a project
that just as well could be done on internal addresses.
It is time to bring it into the 21st century and allow actual high speed
access, multiple routing points, and stop acting like it is still the 80's
or earlier. I didn't just come onto the scene. I help operate a full duplex
2 meter packet repeater and not only live nearby, but am friends with Dale
Heatherington WA4DSY. I've been looking at this for a long time and seeing
how it is almost impossible for an average Ham to even USE this resource we
have.
Either that or give back about 90% of the addresses like several other
responsible entities have done. Use it or lose it!
Ralph
N4NEQ
From: 44net-bounces+ralphlists=bsrg.org(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
[mailto:44net-bounces+ralphlists=bsrg.org@hamradio.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of
Marius Petrescu
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 3:14 PM
To: 'AMPRNet working group'
Subject: Re: [44net] 44net is not just for tunneling
44.x.x.x IS routable. The fact that some parts of it are not is a specific
"feature" of 44 usage, implementation and geographic distribution.
You can reach 44 hosts from the public internet (via ucsd.edu - but this is
nothing special, every subnet has somewhere one or more specific routing
points).
10.x.x.x (together with 192.168.x.x, 172.16-31.xx.xx and 169.254.0.0) is not
routable. Every provider taropits/drops private and link-local IPs, since
their uniqueness can not be ensured. And this means that 10.x.x.x addresses
will NEVER be reachable except if tunneling is used.
From: 44net-bounces+marius=yo2loj.ro(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
[mailto:44net-bounces+marius=yo2loj.ro@hamradio.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Lin
Holcomb
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 19:13
To: AMPRNet working group
Subject: [44net] 44net is not just for tunneling
I am still in the holding pattern while ya'll work out things, but I share
Ralphs frustration. I see tunneling as a project that uses 44net not the
whole 44net project. It seems to me that this has been confused by many and
sent the 44net down one road. We need some highways and not 2 lane dirt
roads, sorry but 1200baud or even 9600 baud is a two land dirt road
compaired to 10-300 meg connections I can offer I spoke to several groups
at Dayton and there are many others who would love to have use of the IP
addresses Dstar, highspeed packet ect. (not tunneling all thru UCSD)
The inability to have routeabil addresses from the net back to the 44net( or
the lack of desire do to the slow speeds) raises this question how is it
that the current tunneling network would be different if the 44.x.x.x was
replaced with a 10.x.x.x and the route point at UCSD was a 44.x.x.x ?
Really what advantage does a non-routabile 44 have over a 10 with the way
you are currently using the network?
From perspective I see no difference....If I cant see a difference why
would ICANN? Folks this is 1/255 off all of the ipv4 addresses in the world
we are talking about. This is like 220 in the 80s use it or loose it.
Lin
3:08 p.m.
Yes, it seems I misunterstood the message.
But with the current multicontinental amateur distribution, we have a real
problem with high speed access, even if it is feasable at local level (I
personally offer VPN acces for hams via a 5 GHz network - sadly no one uses
it since comercial internet access is cheap and most ham resources being
accessible in a modre direct fashion)
But it is prohibitive for me as a private ham with some network knowledge to
even think about BGP or other means for a multihomed network.
So please, pursue solutions but also think about hams outside the US, where
means and possibilites are not the same.
73s de Marius, YO2LOJ
From: 44net-bounces+marius=yo2loj.ro(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
[mailto:44net-bounces+marius=yo2loj.ro@hamradio.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Ralph
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 22:35
To: 'AMPRNet working group'
Subject: Re: [44net] 44net is not just for tunneling
Marius, that is exactly what he said.
If all you are doing is tunneling, then tunnel away. using private
addresses.
I think you may have thought he misunderstood private addresses.
.
3:13 p.m.
Marius,
We are a ready to host addresses and have been ready, we have 2.4 ghz
radios in the ham band right now ready for people to host their own
projects.
Lin
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Marius Petrescu <marius(a)yo2loj.ro> wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
Yes, it seems I misunterstood the message.****
** **
But with the current multicontinental amateur distribution, we have a real
problem with high speed access, even if it is feasable at local level (I
personally offer VPN acces for hams via a 5 GHz network - sadly no one uses
it since comercial internet access is cheap and most ham resources being
accessible in a modre direct fashion)****
But it is prohibitive for me as a private ham with some network knowledge
to even think about BGP or other means for a multihomed network.****
** **
So please, pursue solutions but also think about hams outside the US,
where means and possibilites are not the same.****
** **
73s de Marius, YO2LOJ****
** **
*From:* 44net-bounces+marius=yo2loj.ro(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu [mailto:
44net-bounces+marius=yo2loj.ro(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu] *On Behalf Of *Ralph
*Sent:* Monday, June 04, 2012 22:35
*To:* 'AMPRNet working group'
*Subject:* Re: [44net] 44net is not just for tunneling****
** **
Marius, that is exactly what he said…****
If all you are doing is tunneling, then tunnel away… using private
addresses.****
I think you may have thought he misunderstood private addresses.****
…****
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
--
Lin Holcomb
Office: +1 404 806 5412
Mobile: +1 404 933 1595
Fax: +1 404 348 4250
3:16 p.m.
To all newcomers:
Please read the archives of the mailinglist before you start the discussion for
the umpteenth time.
Rob
3:23 p.m.
Sorry for the southern speach Bjorn and our other international friends.
Ya'll is the contraction of you all http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ya%27ll
:)
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Rob Janssen <pe1chl(a)amsat.org> wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
______________________________**_________________
To all newcomers:
Please read the archives of the mailinglist before you start the
discussion for
the umpteenth time.
Rob
______________________________**___________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/**mailman/listinfo/44net<http://hamradio.ucsd.e…
--
Lin Holcomb
Office: +1 404 806 5412
Mobile: +1 404 933 1595
Fax: +1 404 348 4250
3:33 p.m.
Marius,
Can you not use 2.4ghz frequencies out side of the standard frequencies or
the 5ghz frequencies? My understanding is this is occurring in Germany
right now. I understand that each EU Country operates differently but does
your country not have allocations in the 5ghz band that you can use? Other
options include the new NW radio that is being released this will provide
56k to start and much faster later down the road.
Lin
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Lin Holcomb
<LHolcomb(a)clearqualitygroup.com>wrote;wrote:
Sorry for the southern speach Bjorn and our other
international friends.
Ya'll is the contraction of you all http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ya%27ll
:)
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Rob Janssen <pe1chl(a)amsat.org> wrote:
--
Lin Holcomb
Office: +1 404 806 5412
Mobile: +1 404 933 1595
Fax: +1 404 348 4250
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
______________________________**_________________
To all newcomers:
Please read the archives of the mailinglist before you start the
discussion for
the umpteenth time.
Rob
______________________________**___________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/**mailman/listinfo/44net<http://hamradio.ucsd.e…
--
Lin Holcomb
Office: +1 404 806 5412
Mobile: +1 404 933 1595
Fax: +1 404 348 4250
3:42 p.m.
On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 22:33:02 +0200, Lin Holcomb
<LHolcomb(a)clearqualitygroup.com> wrote:
Other options include the new NW radio that is being
released
this will provide 56k to start and much faster later down the road.
It's confirmed there will be an international version without the US
bandwith limit?
--
73 Andre PE1RDW
3:46 p.m.
Can you send me off list a link to this new NW Radio.. (n9lya at
blueriver.net
Thanks
-----Original Message-----
From: 44net-bounces+n9lya=blueriver.net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
[mailto:44net-bounces+n9lya=blueriver.net@hamradio.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of
Andre
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 4:42 PM
To: AMPRNet working group
Subject: Re: [44net] 44net is not just for tunneling
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 22:33:02 +0200, Lin Holcomb
<LHolcomb(a)clearqualitygroup.com> wrote:
Other options include the new NW radio that is being
released this
will provide 56k to start and much faster later down the road.
It's confirmed there will be an international version without the US
bandwith limit?
--
73 Andre PE1RDW
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
4:19 p.m.
Lin, thanks for the positive exlanation. I am glad it was not an
American relative to Godot we are all waiting for:-). It would be nice
with some feedback on earlier input though to understand in which
direction off-line discussions are heading.
Any progress towards an AMPRNet AS, an acceptable use policy that
not-for-profit research and education networks would accept for peering
and a fair delegation rulebook with both rights, obligations and
sanctions that prevents delegated addresses to be not used or misused?
Best
Bjorn
On 06/04/2012 10:23 PM, Lin Holcomb wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
Sorry for the southern speach Bjorn and our other international friends.
Ya'll is the contraction of you all http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ya%27ll
:)
5:05 p.m.
On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 11:19:34PM +0200, Bjorn Pehrson wrote:
Any progress towards an AMPRNet AS, an acceptable use
policy that
not-for-profit research and education networks would accept for
peering and a fair delegation rulebook with both rights, obligations
and sanctions that prevents delegated addresses to be not used or
misused?
As has been discussed at length on this mailing list, there are
things that have to be done before we can start delegating subnets.
What is going on is that we (our nonprofit) is attempting to get
organized. That means getting the legal documents handled, setting
up an advisory committee, work out an agreement with ARIN regarding
our delegation policies, writing an acceptable use policy and subnet
delegation contract, establishing procedures to evaluate delegation
requests, and figure out some way to fund all of this.
To get an ASN we will need to negotiate with ARIN regarding their
standard AS contract; it appears to require those applying for an ASN to
relinquish a significant amount of autonomy, an amount that I believe is
incompatable with the way we wish to continue to operate network 44.
Note also that an ASN costs $500 plus an annual maintenance fee.
The nonprofit is already about $1k in the hole, financed entirely by me.
We have no source of funds; everything is being done by volunteers
including a significant amount of pro-bono work by a networking-policy-savvy
attorney who has kindly volunteered her time even though she is not
a ham radio licensee (yet).
I'd really like to continue to do this all for free to hams if we can.
We're also working on a web-based replacement for the mail robots that handle
DNS and subnet/gateway matters.
We need to set up an rwhois server to advise of the delegations. This is
an ARIN requirement and good network citizenship. It should be integrated
with the web system.
So we've not been idle; things are slowly moving forward.
We *will* be delegating subnets when the necessaries are in place. Sorry it's
taking so long. Anyone want to help?
- Brian
PS: perhaps I misunderstand Internet peering, but I don't see any
need to get an ASN before delegating subnets. It might be convenient
but I don't think it's a prerequisite. Perhaps someone knowledgeable
could comment on this.
5:11 p.m.
I don't think you need an ASN to delegate subnets if the hosting provider's
ASN is acceptable. I have an old Class-C (Grandfathered, no ARIN
membership) and have hosted it at a couple of data centers under their ASNs.
------------------------------
John D. Hays
K7VE
PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223
<http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>
<http://www.facebook.com/john.d.hays>
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Brian Kantor <Brian(a)ucsd.edu> wrote:
PS: perhaps I misunderstand Internet peering, but I don't see any
need to get an ASN before delegating subnets. It might be convenient
but I don't think it's a prerequisite. Perhaps someone knowledgeable
could comment on this.
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
5 Jun
5 Jun
2:36 a.m.
On 06/05/2012 12:11 AM, K7VE - John wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
I don't think you need an ASN to delegate subnets if the hosting
provider's ASN is acceptable. I have an old Class-C (Grandfathered,
no ARIN membership) and have hosted it at a couple of data centers
under their ASNs.
From a technical detail perspective, you are right, but not from a
vision and communication aspect.
The way to keep the unique 44/8 ipv4 resource together under radio
amateur rules and goals is to keep it under one and only one strong
acceptable use policy, not splitting it up in small pieces.
In this way, we can argue that this is a unique, strictly non-commercial
network for public good on a global scale, all arguments that are known
to open up doors that would otherwise be closed.
Bjorn
4 Jun
4 Jun
6:25 p.m.
Hello Everyone,
To get an ASN we will need to negotiate with ARIN
regarding their
standard AS contract; it appears to require those applying for an ASN
to relinquish a significant amount of autonomy, an amount that I
believe is incompatable with the way we wish to continue to operate
network 44.
I was curious if you could elaborate on this point. I've gone through
the ASN process twice in the pastand beyond proving that I had two or
more functioning BGP speaking Internet connections, I don't remember any
language that required my companies to do anything unnatural in the way
they conducted business.
Note also that an ASN costs $500 plus an annual
maintenance fee. The
nonprofit is already about $1k in the hole, financed entirely by me.
We have no source of funds; everything is being done by volunteers
including a significant amount of pro-bono work by a
networking-policy-savvy attorney who has kindly volunteered her time
even though she is not a ham radio licensee (yet).
Using $1500+Maintenance fees as a budgetary conversation starter, maybe
we could setup a Paypal (whatever) donation system to recover these
costs? I think it's more than fair that when new HAMs get an AMPR IP
allocation or gets listed into the encaps file, asking for say a one
time $10 US donation fee seems very reasonable. I want to say I saw
someone mention that we have 2000 active AMPR tunnels at the moment.
Assuming not everyone can or will want to donate money, a 150 donations
will kickstart this effort effort which would recover your sunk costs
(thank you so much for absorbing this already), get the group a ASN, and
cover future costs, etc.
73s,
--David
KI6ZHD
5 Jun
5 Jun
1:46 a.m.
Thank you Brian for your very positive report!
I am definitely willing to help myself and I am sure there are many
others, both individuals, clubs/associations and institutions, that
would volunteer helping with specific items on the todo-list, if there
is an opportunity to do so.
Regarding the ASN, it is true in a sense that you do not need the
specific number until you actually set up peering and/or transit
agreements with other operators and start announcing the delegated
address space. From a mental/planning point of view it might be enough
at this time to state the intention to get ASN, unless you want to
start a parallel process to stimulate capacity building and create some
order and convergence in the ad hoc arrangements that already exist out
there based on earlier delegations.
As an interim coordinator trying to map the space earlier delegated to
Sweden (44.140/16), which as far as I have been able to find out is
mostly unused or misused, I would welcome such a process as part of the
overall effort. It would help lot to be able to give a structure and way
forward and it would spread awareness that the old delegations will be
taken back and replaced with a new scheme, even if the exact details are
yet to be ironed out.
It seems to me that the unique public good character of global radio
amateurism is a good platform to approach all of IARU, ICANN/IANA and
all the regional registries from, with a request for a free ASN to
facilitate more efficient use of the fantastic ipv4-resource to the next
level. I would be happy to provide feedback, or even participate in the
wording of such a request.
A (next?) step perhaps is to also ask for a provider independent ipv6
space, and point at how this might help accelerate the transition.
Bjorn
12:20 p.m.
On Jun 4, 2012, at 3:05 PM, Brian Kantor wrote:
As has been discussed at length on this mailing list,
there are
things that have to be done before we can start delegating subnets.
What is going on is that we (our nonprofit) is attempting to get
organized. That means getting the legal documents handled, setting
up an advisory committee, work out an agreement with ARIN regarding
our delegation policies, writing an acceptable use policy and subnet
delegation contract, establishing procedures to evaluate delegation
requests, and figure out some way to fund all of this.
To get an ASN we will need to negotiate with ARIN regarding their
standard AS contract; it appears to require those applying for an ASN to
relinquish a significant amount of autonomy, an amount that I believe is
incompatable with the way we wish to continue to operate network 44.
BTW… I am here at NANOG and representatives are here from ARIN (John Curran, David
Huberman, Mark Kosters, Carrie Marino, Leslie Nobile). I would be happy to chat with them
if needed.
Note also that an ASN costs $500 plus an annual
maintenance fee.
The nonprofit is already about $1k in the hole, financed entirely by me.
We have no source of funds; everything is being done by volunteers
including a significant amount of pro-bono work by a networking-policy-savvy
attorney who has kindly volunteered her time even though she is not
a ham radio licensee (yet).
Where can I send monies?
We need to set up an rwhois server to advise of the
delegations. This is
an ARIN requirement and good network citizenship. It should be integrated
with the web system.
I may have offered this before, but I would be happy to help set this up.
So we've not been idle; things are slowly moving
forward.
We *will* be delegating subnets when the necessaries are in place. Sorry it's
taking so long. Anyone want to help?
- Brian
PS: perhaps I misunderstand Internet peering, but I don't see any
need to get an ASN before delegating subnets. It might be convenient
but I don't think it's a prerequisite. Perhaps someone knowledgeable
could comment on this.
You don't need a new ASN. Anyone with an ASN can announce 44/8 space in part or
full.
Tim
12:30 p.m.
I don't think talking to ARIN is going to help much as they seem to have no
over site over 44net space.
This is a direct grandfathered assignment from ICANN. I think charging a
small fee per address block is perfectly reasonable to cover the
administrative costs. Brian have you set up a non-profit paypal account.
That would work really well. Just make sure you tell paypal that it is a
501C3, which will require you to send paperwork. That way they take less
money.
Lin
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Tim Pozar <pozar(a)lns.com> wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
On Jun 4, 2012, at 3:05 PM, Brian Kantor wrote:
--
Lin Holcomb
Office: +1 404 806 5412
Mobile: +1 404 933 1595
Fax: +1 404 348 4250
As has been discussed at length on this mailing
list, there are
things that have to be done before we can start delegating subnets.
What is going on is that we (our nonprofit) is attempting to get
organized. That means getting the legal documents handled, setting
up an advisory committee, work out an agreement with ARIN regarding
our delegation policies, writing an acceptable use policy and subnet
delegation contract, establishing procedures to evaluate delegation
requests, and figure out some way to fund all of this.
To get an ASN we will need to negotiate with ARIN regarding their
standard AS contract; it appears to require those applying for an ASN to
relinquish a significant amount of autonomy, an amount that I believe is
incompatable with the way we wish to continue to operate network 44.
BTW… I am here at NANOG and representatives are here from ARIN (John
Curran, David Huberman, Mark Kosters, Carrie Marino, Leslie Nobile). I
would be happy to chat with them if needed.
Note also that an ASN costs $500 plus an annual
maintenance fee.
The nonprofit is already about $1k in the hole, financed entirely by me.
We have no source of funds; everything is being done by volunteers
including a significant amount of pro-bono work by a
networking-policy-savvy
attorney who has kindly volunteered her time even
though she is not
a ham radio licensee (yet).
Where can I send monies?
We need to set up an rwhois server to advise of
the delegations. This is
an ARIN requirement and good network citizenship. It should be
integrated
with the web system.
I may have offered this before, but I would be happy to help set this up.
So we've not been idle; things are slowly
moving forward.
We *will* be delegating subnets when the necessaries are in place.
Sorry
it's
taking so long. Anyone want to help?
- Brian
PS: perhaps I misunderstand Internet peering, but I don't see any
need to get an ASN before delegating subnets. It might be convenient
but I don't think it's a prerequisite. Perhaps someone knowledgeable
could comment on this.
You don't need a new ASN. Anyone with an ASN can announce 44/8 space in
part or full.
Tim
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
12:39 p.m.
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Tim Pozar <pozar(a)lns.com> wrote:
Absolutely. I'd be more than happy to contribute.
My understanding of the routing is that people who want a 44net delegation
need to meet ARIN/RIPE standards which does mean multihoming and a AS#.
There is probably a way to delegate to the ISP level where you'd then
setup private BGP with your ISP. But as a whole, it would seem that it
would initially be outside the realm of many armchair network operators
with home based networks. Certainly you couldn't call up Comcast with your
home cable modem and say that you want to add a block of 44/8's to your
account. I think their AUP might come into the conversation. :-)
Note also that
an ASN costs $500 plus an annual maintenance fee.
The nonprofit is already about $1k in the hole, financed entirely by me.
We have no source of funds; everything is being done by volunteers
including a significant amount of pro-bono work by a
networking-policy-savvy
attorney who has kindly volunteered her time even
though she is not
a ham radio licensee (yet).
Where can I send monies?
PS: perhaps I misunderstand Internet peering, but I don't see any
need to get an ASN before delegating subnets. It might be convenient
but I don't think it's a prerequisite. Perhaps someone knowledgeable
could comment on this.
You don't need a new ASN. Anyone with an ASN can announce 44/8 space in
part or full.
12:52 p.m.
On Jun 5, 2012, at 10:39 AM, Don Fanning wrote:
Tim Pozar wrote:
Two things here…
The 44/8 network is pre-ICANN (Postel).
Currently in order to get portable address space, you have to demonstrate you are
multi-homed and you have an ASN.
The organization "Amateur Radio Digital Communications" (see whois.arin.net)
already has 44/8. Anyone that has an ASN can announce this space in full or part as along
as this is blessed by the "owner". In fact, I announce /24s and /16 for folks
that got their address space also from Jon Postel (pre-ICANN).
Tim
You don't need a new ASN. Anyone with an ASN
can announce 44/8 space in part or full.
My understanding of the routing is that people who want a 44net delegation need to meet
ARIN/RIPE standards which does mean multihoming and a AS#. There is probably a way to
delegate to the ISP level where you'd then setup private BGP with your ISP. But as a
whole, it would seem that it would initially be outside the realm of many armchair network
operators with home based networks. Certainly you couldn't call up Comcast with your
home cable modem and say that you want to add a block of 44/8's to your account. I
think their AUP might come into the conversation. :-)
1:04 p.m.
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Tim Pozar <pozar(a)lns.com> wrote:
The organization "Amateur Radio Digital
Communications" (see
whois.arin.net) already has 44/8. Anyone that has an ASN can announce
this space in full or part as along as this is blessed by the "owner". In
fact, I announce /24s and /16 for folks that got their address space also
from Jon Postel (pre-ICANN).
I was wondering how that worked for LEGACY. But isn't it sort of a
chicken/egg issue? If you have an ASN , you can advertise 44/8. But if
you don't, you have to meet the current ARIN standards? So really it's
just the legal aspect that needs to be addressed so that the delegates
aren't permanently transferred when delegated.
Also I see a hardware aspect that needs to be addressed to make the cloud
more robust with multiple core routers in different datacenters around the
world should southern california ever take the big drink into the pacific.
1:09 p.m.
I have a pre-ICANN Class-C and its currently advertised on an ASN owned by
a hosting company (and I tunnel it to other location(s)) -- I don't think
we need an ASN to delegate, but lets explore it further and weigh the
plusses and minuses.
------------------------------
John D. Hays
K7VE
PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223
<http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>
<http://www.facebook.com/john.d.hays>
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Don Fanning <don(a)00100100.net> wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Tim Pozar <pozar(a)lns.com> wrote:
The organization "Amateur Radio Digital
Communications" (see
whois.arin.net) already has 44/8. Anyone that has an ASN can announce
this space in full or part as along as this is blessed by the "owner". In
fact, I announce /24s and /16 for folks that got their address space also
from Jon Postel (pre-ICANN).
I was wondering how that worked for LEGACY. But isn't it sort of a
chicken/egg issue? If you have an ASN , you can advertise 44/8. But if
you don't, you have to meet the current ARIN standards? So really it's
just the legal aspect that needs to be addressed so that the delegates
aren't permanently transferred when delegated.
Also I see a hardware aspect that needs to be addressed to make the cloud
more robust with multiple core routers in different datacenters around the
world should southern california ever take the big drink into the pacific.
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
1:20 p.m.
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 11:04:12AM -0700, Don Fanning wrote:
I was wondering how that worked for LEGACY. But
isn't it sort of a
chicken/egg issue? If you have an ASN , you can advertise 44/8. But if
you don't, you have to meet the current ARIN standards? So really it's
just the legal aspect that needs to be addressed so that the delegates
aren't permanently transferred when delegated.
I believe the question of getting an ASN only comes up when a new peer comes on
line (for example, a new ISP that has or plans to have multiple upstream NSPs).
Since it is likely that all delegations will be done via existing service
providers, I think we don't need our own ASN at this time.
- Brian
1:39 p.m.
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Brian Kantor <Brian(a)ucsd.edu> wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 11:04:12AM -0700, Don Fanning wrote:
I guess that's where the rub is then.
I've been going through all the hurtles about getting my own IPv6 space and
having redundant network paths so technically I would be a new ISP. Even
hosting/service providers (not resellers) have to get their own ASN's
separate from the ISP (if they're multihomed with different ISP providers).
As for 44net needing an ASN, right now it's being advertised through UCSD
so technically it already has one. If the rebuild is done correctly,
trusted core routers/isp's will join UCSD in becoming the "core" for 44net
and if UCSD were to be removed from the picture it should still work on the
new core network.
I was wondering how that worked for LEGACY. But
isn't it sort of a
chicken/egg issue? If you have an ASN , you can advertise 44/8. But if
you don't, you have to meet the current ARIN standards? So really it's
just the legal aspect that needs to be addressed so that the delegates
aren't permanently transferred when delegated.
I believe the question of getting an ASN only comes up when a new peer
comes on
line (for example, a new ISP that has or plans to have multiple upstream
NSPs).
Since it is likely that all delegations will be done via existing service
providers, I think we don't need our own ASN at this time.
- Brian
3:44 p.m.
It seems as if I misinterpreted your earlier message summarizing the
offline discussions Brian.
Splitting up the address space by delegations of smaller chunks to
commercial service providers with different AS-numbers and policies will
lead to a historical mistake. Is that what you propose in your latest
message ? or am I missing something now?
The way to create the trust and support for a radio amateur policy is to
keep it together by keeping the delegations inside the community under
an amprnet as-number facilitating multi-homing without tunnels
connecting the delegations to the outside world anywhere via peering and
transit agreements and keeping the challenge of internal connectivity
between delegations as the driver of innovation that will take radio
amateurism to the next level.
Managing interdomain peering and transit via bgp, announcing delegated
pieces of the 44/8 via different border routers is not difficult and can
be done with low cost solutions and open source routing software, much
cheaper than most rigs.
In what way will the ham community benefit from splitting up the
resource? In no way that I can see, but there is a lot to loose.
Bjorn
On 2012-06-05 20:20, Brian Kantor wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 11:04:12AM -0700, Don Fanning wrote:
I was wondering how that worked for LEGACY. But
isn't it sort of a
chicken/egg issue? If you have an ASN , you can advertise 44/8. But if
you don't, you have to meet the current ARIN standards? So really it's
just the legal aspect that needs to be addressed so that the delegates
aren't permanently transferred when delegated.
I believe the question of
getting an ASN only comes up when a new peer comes on
line (for example, a new ISP that has or plans to have multiple upstream NSPs).
Since it is likely that all delegations will be done via existing service
providers, I think we don't need our own ASN at this time.
- Brian
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
4:24 p.m.
I think there is a separation of concerns here.
On the one hand, I think people want to eliminate the bottle-neck/single
point of failure that a single net 44.x.x.x routing point provides (UCSD).
This is where the discussion of delegation with or without a ASN is
rooted. Can all of 44.x.x.x be multi-homed using multiple ASNs (owned by
the providers) or do we need an ASN with multiple homes?
On the other hand, the "last mile" of net 44 might be a variety of
transports including everything from 1200-baud AX.25 transports to
multi-megabyte HSMM LANs. Since this is Amateur Radio, often these last
mile points of presence might include tunneling to upstream routers through
"consumer" Internet connections. For example, I have 25/25MB fiber to the
house ISP service, but would likely be unable to get a BGP agreement from
my ISP, though I already tunnel a Class-C network from a data center whose
ASN is associated with my network. This is the more likely scenario for
LANs whether wired or over RF. Also the network deployment may be
temporary and ad-hoc, for example, an emergency response team might create
a temporary LAN at a refugee camp and use RF to get back to the rest of
Net-44, having a pre-provisioned tunnel that a router could open would
facilitate connectivity. At Hamvention® and SEAPAC the last couple of
weeks, I brought a /27 subnet (off my Class-C) to the NW Digital Radio
booth through a L2TP tunnel, one weekend in Dayton, OH and one weekend in
Seaside, OR (over 2000 miles distance) -- before, between, and after that
same router was at my house in Edmonds, WA providing connectivity to a
D-STAR gateway and other services. In each location the tunnel uses a
dynamically allocated IP address for the remote to a static address at a
data center for transport.
Also, a LAN manager may want to restrict routing by a firewall, allow
outbound connections to the Internet, while restricting inbound connections
to certain ports where the source address is in 44.x.x.x -- to limit
traffic on RF for bandwidth management or content concerns.
So let's keep the two concepts in mind. Major routing infrastructure
(strategic) vs last mile (tactical). One size does not fit all.
------------------------------
John D. Hays
K7VE
PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223
<http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>
<http://www.facebook.com/john.d.hays>
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Bjorn Pehrson <bpehrson(a)kth.se> wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
______________________________**_________________
It seems as if I misinterpreted your earlier message summarizing the
offline discussions Brian.
Splitting up the address space by delegations of smaller chunks to
commercial service providers with different AS-numbers and policies will
lead to a historical mistake. Is that what you propose in your latest
message ? or am I missing something now?
The way to create the trust and support for a radio amateur policy is to
keep it together by keeping the delegations inside the community under an
amprnet as-number facilitating multi-homing without tunnels connecting
the delegations to the outside world anywhere via peering and transit
agreements and keeping the challenge of internal connectivity between
delegations as the driver of innovation that will take radio amateurism to
the next level.
Managing interdomain peering and transit via bgp, announcing delegated
pieces of the 44/8 via different border routers is not difficult and can be
done with low cost solutions and open source routing software, much cheaper
than most rigs.
In what way will the ham community benefit from splitting up the resource?
In no way that I can see, but there is a lot to loose.
Bjorn
6 Jun
6 Jun
1:44 a.m.
Thanks John for this structuring.
1. Your first hand question concerns interdomain routing, i.e.
connectivity between AMPRNet and the rest of the address space.
I totally agree that AMPRNet should be multihomed, i.e. peering at more
than one location.
My answer to your question mark is that, technically anything goes but
from a strict policy point of view, leading to substantial advantages in
terms of relations both with the global Internet community (ICANN/IANA
and all regional registries) and the gobal ham community (IARU and all
regional and national leaues), AMPRNET will need an ASN. Splitting up
will lead to disaster.
2. Your second hand question concerns intradomain routing, i.e.
connectivity inside AMPRnet, in the 44/8 address space, including
backbone links, access links and last (or rather first) mile links
between AMPRnet nodes.
This question is at the core of what amprnet is and what yall(:-)/we
would like it to be. Going back to www.ampr.org/amprnet.html the
question is how we would like to edit the second sentence on that page.
My take on that is that I may be prepared to support changing the word
"entirely" to "essentially" or just delete it, but changing anything
else will take away not only our originality but also our challenge.
This will also lead to disaster.
So. like 44/8 addresses, intradomain links should be under ham control,
be it backbone, access or first mile links. A last mile link is a
commercial concept, not a volunteer hobbyist ham operator concept.
Consequently, you are per definition outside AMPRnet, or at least in an
enclave, if you use a last mile link. This should be fine even without
tunneling as long as you can reach AMPRNet destinations via intermediate
operators not restricting the services that you want to carry on top of
IP. If you end up in such trouble, you can try to change your path,
advocate a change of operator policies calling on support from the
entire community, or set up a first mile link, either directly to
AMPRnet or to a more positive intermediate operators.
Any other takers of this view? The lynchpin is what we want AMPRnet to
be. Technically, we can do anything, even with armchair operators and a
good FAQ-support. There is a lot of professional experience in the
community.
Bjorn
On 2012-06-05 23:24, K7VE - John wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
I think there is a separation of concerns here.
On the one hand, I think people want to eliminate the
bottle-neck/single point of failure that a single net 44.x.x.x routing
point provides (UCSD). This is where the discussion of delegation
with or without a ASN is rooted. Can all of 44.x.x.x be multi-homed
using multiple ASNs (owned by the providers) or do we need an ASN with
multiple homes?
On the other hand, the "last mile" of net 44 might be a variety of
transports including everything from 1200-baud AX.25 transports to
multi-megabyte HSMM LANs. Since this is Amateur Radio, often these
last mile points of presence might include tunneling to upstream
routers through "consumer" Internet connections. For example, I have
25/25MB fiber to the house ISP service, but would likely be unable to
get a BGP agreement from my ISP, though I already tunnel a Class-C
network from a data center whose ASN is associated with my network.
This is the more likely scenario for LANs whether wired or over RF.
Also the network deployment may be temporary and ad-hoc, for example,
an emergency response team might create a temporary LAN at a refugee
camp and use RF to get back to the rest of Net-44, having a
pre-provisioned tunnel that a router could open would facilitate
connectivity. At Hamvention® and SEAPAC the last couple of weeks, I
brought a /27 subnet (off my Class-C) to the NW Digital Radio booth
through a L2TP tunnel, one weekend in Dayton, OH and one weekend in
Seaside, OR (over 2000 miles distance) -- before, between, and after
that same router was at my house in Edmonds, WA providing connectivity
to a D-STAR gateway and other services. In each location the tunnel
uses a dynamically allocated IP address for the remote to a static
address at a data center for transport.
Also, a LAN manager may want to restrict routing by a firewall, allow
outbound connections to the Internet, while restricting inbound
connections to certain ports where the source address is in 44.x.x.x
-- to limit traffic on RF for bandwidth management or content concerns.
So let's keep the two concepts in mind. Major routing infrastructure
(strategic) vs last mile (tactical). One size does not fit all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John D. Hays
K7VE
PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223
<http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#%21/john_hays>
<http://www.facebook.com/john.d.hays>
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Bjorn Pehrson <bpehrson(a)kth.se
<mailto:bpehrson@kth.se>> wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
It seems as if I misinterpreted your earlier message summarizing
the offline discussions Brian.
Splitting up the address space by delegations of smaller chunks to
commercial service providers with different AS-numbers and
policies will lead to a historical mistake. Is that what you
propose in your latest message ? or am I missing something now?
The way to create the trust and support for a radio amateur policy
is to keep it together by keeping the delegations inside the
community under an amprnet as-number facilitating multi-homing
without tunnels connecting the delegations to the outside world
anywhere via peering and transit agreements and keeping the
challenge of internal connectivity between delegations as the
driver of innovation that will take radio amateurism to the next
level.
Managing interdomain peering and transit via bgp, announcing
delegated pieces of the 44/8 via different border routers is not
difficult and can be done with low cost solutions and open source
routing software, much cheaper than most rigs.
In what way will the ham community benefit from splitting up the
resource? In no way that I can see, but there is a lot to loose.
Bjorn
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
5 Jun
5 Jun
5:24 p.m.
Bjorne
I think the issue is the complexity and cost of obtaining and setting up an
AS.
While delegating this to the ISP/university who routes the 44net to the radio interface
point. It is common to lease IP addresses to users in the commercial world. Those leases
could be revoked by AMPR if the user is not using the space or not using it per the TOUA.
AMPR could simply issue a letter to the ISP directing them to terminate the AS entries.
Lin
6 Jun
6 Jun
1:57 a.m.
Hi Lin,
Considering what is at stake, I would still advocate going for an AS to
keep the unique character of AMPRnet.
We should not underestimate the strength of the concept and the public
good component.
Delegating the non-radio links to commercial operators is likely to
limit the scope of AMPRnet, make innovation harder and create less
alternative infrastructure.
I may be overly optimistic, but I do believe that, if we stick to
principles, we will get an ASN for free. And many of us do not find it
complex to set up. I think it is worth a try.
Bjorn
On 2012-06-06 00:24, Lin Holcomb wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
Bjorne
I think the issue is the complexity and cost of obtaining and setting
up an AS.
While delegating this to the ISP/university who routes the 44net to
the radio interface point. It is common to lease IP addresses to
users in the commercial world. Those leases could be revoked by AMPR
if the user is not using the space or not using it per the TOUA. AMPR
could simply issue a letter to the ISP directing them to terminate the
AS entries.
Lin
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net 
12:47 a.m.
On Tue, 5 Jun 2012, Bjorn Pehrson wrote:
Splitting up the address space by delegations of
smaller chunks to commercial
service providers with different AS-numbers and policies will lead to a
historical mistake.
I would see the choice between using local AS numbers for the
announcements (be it commercial or non-commercial) vs. using a single AS
"just" a technical detail about the future network design.
The policy issue is a separate thing, and the delegation agreements and
policies can be quite the same, regardless of the technical solution to do
the announcements.
1: Do we wish to allow a larger amount of sites (like, one per country, or
more) to locally announce their prefixes on the Internet? Ok, allow them
to announce their delegations from whatever local AS the local network
admins have access to, possibly reusing existing routers and peering
agreements, just adding the prefix to the routing policies. It's quite
lightweight to set up (at least, it would be for us here) and can be done
incrementally (some sites can set it up while the others keep on doing
what has been done before). I would imagine us announcing Finland
(44.139/16), routing it to RF, and tunneling it locally to other local
gateways.
2: Or do we wish to go for a smaller amount of sites (less than one per
country) announcing the whole 44/8 to reduce load and dependence on UCSD?
Ok, get an AS, routers to run it at those sites, arrange IGP connectivity
within the AS (probably tunnels again), and innovate tunneling solutions
to distribute traffic further from those points to the end users. I don't
see the intra-AS (IGP) connectivity happening without tunnels any time
soon - availability of long-range high-bandwidth radio links would require
pretty advanced innovation.
It's possible to do both of those. AS for AMPRnet to do the /8
announcements from more than one site, and local announcements for those
sites who wish to have traffic routed from the Internet directly to the
site / country without passing one of the AMPRnet AS routers / tunnel
brokers.
- Hessu, OH7LZB
2:42 a.m.
Hi Heikki,
The discussion on policy and regulatory framework is of course important
to avoid making decisions on technical details that may later turn out
not be consistent with the general goals.
Since we want to keep unique privileges for the ham community, and even
extend them with more unique privileges, I strongly believe that the
best, simplest and cheapest way to go is to have an independent AS, to
give a single very clear message about policy and regulation concerning
AMPRnet, unmixed with other interests. This facilitate communicating
the vision, objectives and goals immensely.
You can still announce different delegations at different locations, one
or more per region, country, or whatever.
If AMPRnet intradomain links will be required to be under ham control,
we will have to, and I would say want to, live with a fragmented
AMPRNet. This is one of the main motives for multihoming. This should be
combined with drivers of intra-domain connectivity to interconnect
enclaves. Examples of such drivers could include both carrots and
sticks, such as contests with prizes and minimum progress required to
keep a delegation.
Bjorn
On 2012-06-06 07:47, Heikki Hannikainen wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
On Tue, 5 Jun 2012, Bjorn Pehrson wrote:
Splitting up the address space by delegations of
smaller chunks to
commercial service providers with different AS-numbers and policies
will lead to a historical mistake.
I would see the choice between using local AS numbers for the
announcements (be it commercial or non-commercial) vs. using a single
AS "just" a technical detail about the future network design.
The policy issue is a separate thing, and the delegation agreements
and policies can be quite the same, regardless of the technical
solution to do the announcements.
1: Do we wish to allow a larger amount of sites (like, one per
country, or more) to locally announce their prefixes on the Internet?
Ok, allow them to announce their delegations from whatever local AS
the local network admins have access to, possibly reusing existing
routers and peering agreements, just adding the prefix to the routing
policies. It's quite lightweight to set up (at least, it would be for
us here) and can be done incrementally (some sites can set it up while
the others keep on doing what has been done before). I would imagine
us announcing Finland (44.139/16), routing it to RF, and tunneling it
locally to other local gateways.
2: Or do we wish to go for a smaller amount of sites (less than one
per country) announcing the whole 44/8 to reduce load and dependence
on UCSD? Ok, get an AS, routers to run it at those sites, arrange IGP
connectivity within the AS (probably tunnels again), and innovate
tunneling solutions to distribute traffic further from those points to
the end users. I don't see the intra-AS (IGP) connectivity happening
without tunnels any time soon - availability of long-range
high-bandwidth radio links would require pretty advanced innovation.
It's possible to do both of those. AS for AMPRnet to do the /8
announcements from more than one site, and local announcements for
those sites who wish to have traffic routed from the Internet directly
to the site / country without passing one of the AMPRnet AS routers /
tunnel brokers.
- Hessu, OH7LZB
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
.
3:37 a.m.
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
I have been watching these discussions with interest, from my perspective here in the UK,
I have the following comments:
There have been several, what I would consider, US-Centric views discussed and I think
everyone needs to appreciate that this is World wide, what is being done in the US (or any
other specific country for that matter) may be (and usually is) very different to other
countries. Not only that, we have a lot of widely varying projects on the go, with
sometimes conflicting interests, not everyone uses the same software/hardware/protocols
and we need to bear all this in mind when moving forward with whatever plan is decided
upon.
Whether we individually, or as a group, agree with how the rest of the Internet is cobbled
together, we are not going to change it, so we should simply embrace it and integrate our
44/8 in the accepted manner. By this I mean, we should obtain an AS number as a matter of
priority, then introduce additional border routers to announce the 44/8 in other
countries.
IMHO there should be a minimum of two border routers announcing the entire 44/8 that have
(tunnelled?) backhaul between them. If individual countries then wish to setup border
routers to announce more specific prefixes for their country (generally /16's) then I
don't see a problem with that either, the more diverse our setup, the more resilient
it becomes, no more single point of failure for connectivity with the rest of the internet
at large.
Of course, what we then do "internally" is up to us to decide, but as a baseline
we should be "hooking up" to the Internet in the currently accepted manner,
using best practices to ensure reliability and resilience.
Clearly this all costs money and a Paypal donate link should be a given, hams are a stingy
lot generally, but I am sure there will be some who feel they can contribute with real
money, whilst others will contribute with time and effort (Thank you Brian, Jim, et al).
There is still a way to go in terms of what could be described as "commercial
infrastructure", which unfortunately is required in order to interoperate with the
commercial world (aka the rest of the Internet). Brian has made a lot of progress in this
regard, by setting up the not-for-profit entity, which is required in order to get an ASN,
and will also be required in order to sign agreements with peers and transit providers.
Other "requirements" such as a centralised point of contact website, rwhois
server, etc are all being worked on and should be ready soon. At some point a set of
procedures & policies will need to be created and published in order to interact with
the Internet at large and also to protect our resource if prefixes are allocated in the
manner that has been discussed.
In answer to the criticism I saw concerning one person "controlling" all these
addresses - why do you think the not-for-profit entity has been setup? Exactly so that
this not the case anymore, once everything is in place our resource will be protected
against such calamity's as Brian losing his position at UCSD, etc.
The 44/8 resource we have is a fantastic legacy, lets not squander it. I have seen
discussions from time to time in other network groups (NANOG in particular) where eyes
have turned to focus on our resource. Unless it is managed effectively and utilised fully
we risk losing it, which would be a real shame.
Regards,
Chris
G1FEF
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
4 Jun
4 Jun
3:30 p.m.
Rob, I understand why you said this, and thanks for your suggestion, but
there have been offline discussions going on about this for a couple of
months with Brian and several others. It is now time to discuss it again
and this time DO something about it. We Hams are not being good stewards of
the IP space by hoarding it and not using it efficiently.
Ralph
-----Rob Said-----
To all newcomers:
Please read the archives of the mailinglist before you start the discussion
for the umpteenth time.
Rob
3:34 p.m.
6 months to be exact.
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Ralph <ralphlists(a)bsrg.org> wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
Rob, I understand why you said this, and thanks for your suggestion, but
there have been offline discussions going on about this for a couple of
months with Brian and several others. It is now time to discuss it again
and this time DO something about it. We Hams are not being good stewards of
the IP space by hoarding it and not using it efficiently.
Ralph
-----Rob Said-----
To all newcomers:
Please read the archives of the mailinglist before you start the discussion
for the umpteenth time.
Rob
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
--
Lin Holcomb
Office: +1 404 806 5412
Mobile: +1 404 933 1595
Fax: +1 404 348 4250
3:48 p.m.
So are people really setup to meet ARIN qualifications? Have a few grand
in the group's coffers to get legit with ARIN?
Are people ready to put money into the non-profit that Brian setup for
ampr.org?
To begin splitting the subnet into different pieces requires hardware, AS
numbers so that the BGP cloud knows where the subnets splitting from UCSD
live. Not to mention some legal paperwork so that the IP space can be
"leased" to your organization but not removed completely out of the
non-profit.
Last I heard, people were trying to figure out the hardware aspect of
things.
Splitting the subnet across the internet isn't as easy as allocating
subnets to your regional coordinators and letting them deal with it. Tho,
that's really who should be involved. There are Internet engineering
aspects that most people haven't even thought of yet.
5:47 p.m.
I have been a proponent of announcing prefixes out of the /8 that could be used for local
packet and amateur use in a community. There is much to be discussed on how this could be
executed. I suggested to Brian that a face to face meeting with interested parties to
start to hammer out issues, policies, etc. Perhaps meeting at UCSD as Brian and the gear
is there. They could also likely support meeting space and teleconferencing if needed.
This is a resource that can benefit the amateur radio community and it would be bad if
this gets high jacked for use other than this community.
Tim
On Jun 4, 2012, at 12:34 PM, Ralph wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
Marius, that is exactly what he said…
If all you are doing is tunneling, then tunnel away… using private addresses.
I think you may have thought he misunderstood private addresses.
What he is proposing (and I also mentioned) is not tying up all the addresses and
limiting accessibility to some box Brian has stashed in a corner at UCSD.(figure of
speech)
If something happens to it, or him, then the system is dead. Correct me if I am wrong,
but UCSD is the ONLY routing point. I doubt UCSD even knows that it is being used as the
gateway for this entire 44 net.
There are hundreds of thousands of IP addresses being tied up for a project that just as
well could be done on internal addresses.
It is time to bring it into the 21st century and allow actual high speed access, multiple
routing points, and stop acting like it is still the 80’s or earlier. I didn’t just come
onto the scene. I help operate a full duplex 2 meter packet repeater and not only live
nearby, but am friends with Dale Heatherington WA4DSY. I’ve been looking at this for a
long time and seeing how it is almost impossible for an average Ham to even USE this
resource we have.
Either that or give back about 90% of the addresses like several other responsible
entities have done. Use it or lose it!
Ralph
N4NEQ
From: 44net-bounces+ralphlists=bsrg.org(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
[mailto:44net-bounces+ralphlists=bsrg.org@hamradio.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Marius Petrescu
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 3:14 PM
To: 'AMPRNet working group'
Subject: Re: [44net] 44net is not just for tunneling
44.x.x.x IS routable. The fact that some parts of it are not is a specific
"feature" of 44 usage, implementation and geographic distribution.
You can reach 44 hosts from the public internet (via ucsd.edu - but this is nothing
special, every subnet has somewhere one or more specific routing points).
10.x.x.x (together with 192.168.x.x, 172.16-31.xx.xx and 169.254.0.0) is not routable.
Every provider taropits/drops private and link-local IPs, since their uniqueness can not
be ensured. And this means that 10.x.x.x addresses will NEVER be reachable except if
tunneling is used.
From: 44net-bounces+marius=yo2loj.ro(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
[mailto:44net-bounces+marius=yo2loj.ro@hamradio.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Lin Holcomb
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 19:13
To: AMPRNet working group
Subject: [44net] 44net is not just for tunneling
I am still in the holding pattern while ya'll work out things, but I share Ralphs
frustration. I see tunneling as a project that uses 44net not the whole 44net project.
It seems to me that this has been confused by many and sent the 44net down one road. We
need some highways and not 2 lane dirt roads, sorry but 1200baud or even 9600 baud is a
two land dirt road compaired to 10-300 meg connections I can offer I spoke to several
groups at Dayton and there are many others who would love to have use of the IP addresses
Dstar, highspeed packet ect. (not tunneling all thru UCSD)
The inability to have routeabil addresses from the net back to the 44net( or the lack of
desire do to the slow speeds) raises this question how is it that the current tunneling
network would be different if the 44.x.x.x was replaced with a 10.x.x.x and the route
point at UCSD was a 44.x.x.x ? Really what advantage does a non-routabile 44 have over a
10 with the way you are currently using the network?
From perspective I see no difference....If I cant see a difference why would ICANN?
Folks this is 1/255 off all of the ipv4 addresses in the world we are talking about. This
is like 220 in the 80s use it or loose it.
Lin
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
6:58 p.m.
Who is hijacking it?
Or are you talking about if ICANN gets the addresses back because we aren't
using them?
-----Original Message-----
On Behalf Of Tim Pozar
I have been a proponent of announcing prefixes out of the /8 that could be
used for local packet and amateur use in a community. There is much to be
discussed on how this could be executed. I suggested to Brian that a face
to face meeting with interested parties to start to hammer out issues,
policies, etc. Perhaps meeting at UCSD as Brian and the gear is there.
They could also likely support meeting space and teleconferencing if needed.
This is a resource that can benefit the amateur radio community and it would
be bad if this gets high jacked for use other than this community.
Tim
5 Jun
5 Jun
12:40 p.m.
On Jun 4, 2012, at 4:58 PM, Ralph wrote:
Who is hijacking it?
Or are you talking about if ICANN gets the addresses back because we aren't
using them?
My understanding is that in the past some prefixes I have seen announced from the 44/8
have not been authorized by Brian. I am calling those "hi-jacked".
Tim
12:42 p.m.
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Tim Pozar <pozar(a)lns.com> wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
On Jun 4, 2012, at 4:58 PM, Ralph wrote:
Much like the Chinese rerouting global internet traffic to go through
them...
Who is hijacking it?
Or are you talking about if ICANN gets the addresses back because we
aren't
using them?
My understanding is that in the past some prefixes I have seen announced
from the 44/8 have not been authorized by Brian. I am calling those
"hi-jacked".
Tim
12:49 p.m.
> > Or are you talking about if ICANN gets the
addresses back because we aren't
> > using them?
Lots of good ideas and info being posted. There must be some
incredible on the air RF 44Net projects to make all this necessary.
Any links to the projects so we can see what's going on?
Maybe there will be something to fire up some local excitement here
where my simple 1200 baud nodes on 145.01 is all that on the air. I
am close to the point of dealing with the bureaucracy to get that
linked (tunneled...) to the rest of the 44Net world.
Bill - WA7NWP
1:02 p.m.
There are four BGP announcers that we know of. Two were authorized in
the dim distant past, one on what was supposed to be a short-term basis
(thus my strong concern for agreements and contracts), and one is being
phased out and will stop being announced when the last users are off it.
As far as I'm concerned the other two are unauthorized and we are working
to have them stop being announced.
- Brian
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 10:40:35AM -0700, Tim Pozar wrote:
My understanding is that in the past some prefixes I
have seen announced from the 44/8 have not been authorized by Brian. I am calling those
"hi-jacked".
Tim
8 p.m.
On Jun 5, 2012, at 10:40 AM, Tim Pozar wrote:
On Jun 4, 2012, at 4:58 PM, Ralph wrote:
BTW… Folks can see the current announced prefixes at Route Views…
route-views>show ip bgp 44.0.0.0/8 subnets | inc 44.
* 44.0.0.0 194.85.102.33 0 3277 3267 50139 20965 11537
2153 2152 7377 i
* 44.16.15.0/24 194.85.102.33 0 3277 3267 50139 20965 11537
2153 2152 567 226 * 44.68.52.0/24 194.85.102.33 0 3277 3267
174 12637 i
* 44.130.99.0/24 194.85.102.33 0 3277 3267 13237 28748 i
route-views>
AS7377 is UCSD
AS226 is Los Nettos
AS12637 is Seeweb s.r.l.
AS28748 is Marc Pauls (AlphaCron Datensysteme)
Tim
Who is hijacking it?
Or are you talking about if ICANN gets the addresses back because we aren't
using them?
My understanding is that in the past some prefixes I have seen announced from the 44/8
have not been authorized by Brian. I am calling those "hi-jacked".
8:10 p.m.
are these hams who don't agree with one person controlling 16million addresses,
comercial entities who have been able to hijack them even though it is
"controlled" by ampr? if they were hijacked under the current system does it
really make a difference whether the AS is "ampr" or not. it really does not
look like ampr has done a great job of controlling the space if these are not hams.
Lin
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 5, 2012, at 9:00 PM, Tim Pozar <pozar(a)lns.com> wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
On Jun 5, 2012, at 10:40 AM, Tim Pozar wrote:
On Jun 4, 2012, at 4:58 PM, Ralph wrote:
BTW… Folks can see the current announced prefixes at Route Views…
route-views>show ip bgp 44.0.0.0/8 subnets | inc 44.
* 44.0.0.0 194.85.102.33 0 3277 3267 50139 20965 11537
2153 2152 7377 i
* 44.16.15.0/24 194.85.102.33 0 3277 3267 50139 20965 11537
2153 2152 567 226 * 44.68.52.0/24 194.85.102.33 0 3277 3267
174 12637 i
* 44.130.99.0/24 194.85.102.33 0 3277 3267 13237 28748 i
route-views>
AS7377 is UCSD
AS226 is Los Nettos
AS12637 is Seeweb s.r.l.
AS28748 is Marc Pauls (AlphaCron Datensysteme)
Tim
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net Who is hijacking it?
Or are you talking about if ICANN gets the addresses back because we aren't
using them?
My understanding is that in the past some prefixes I have seen announced from the 44/8
have not been authorized by Brian. I am calling those "hi-jacked".
8:15 p.m.
Please read Brian's email if you have questions about these prefixes. I am only
reporting that there are three other announcements besides UCSD and reporting who is doing
the announcments.
Tim
On Jun 5, 2012, at 6:10 PM, Lin Holcomb wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
are these hams who don't agree with one person controlling 16million addresses,
comercial entities who have been able to hijack them even though it is
"controlled" by ampr? if they were hijacked under the current system does it
really make a difference whether the AS is "ampr" or not. it really does not
look like ampr has done a great job of controlling the space if these are not hams.
Lin
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 5, 2012, at 9:00 PM, Tim Pozar <pozar(a)lns.com> wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
On Jun 5, 2012, at 10:40 AM, Tim Pozar wrote:
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net On Jun 4, 2012, at 4:58 PM, Ralph wrote:
BTW… Folks can see the current announced prefixes at Route Views…
route-views>show ip bgp 44.0.0.0/8 subnets | inc 44.
* 44.0.0.0 194.85.102.33 0 3277 3267 50139 20965 11537
2153 2152 7377 i
* 44.16.15.0/24 194.85.102.33 0 3277 3267 50139 20965 11537
2153 2152 567 226 * 44.68.52.0/24 194.85.102.33 0 3277 3267
174 12637 i
* 44.130.99.0/24 194.85.102.33 0 3277 3267 13237 28748 i
route-views>
AS7377 is UCSD
AS226 is Los Nettos
AS12637 is Seeweb s.r.l.
AS28748 is Marc Pauls (AlphaCron Datensysteme)
Tim
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net Who is hijacking it?
Or are you talking about if ICANN gets the addresses back because we aren't
using them?
My understanding is that in the past some prefixes I have seen announced from the 44/8
have not been authorized by Brian. I am calling those "hi-jacked".
8:16 p.m.
an additional though it is hard to hijack something that is being used....right?
Lin
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 5, 2012, at 9:00 PM, Tim Pozar <pozar(a)lns.com> wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
On Jun 5, 2012, at 10:40 AM, Tim Pozar wrote:
On Jun 4, 2012, at 4:58 PM, Ralph wrote:
BTW… Folks can see the current announced prefixes at Route Views…
route-views>show ip bgp 44.0.0.0/8 subnets | inc 44.
* 44.0.0.0 194.85.102.33 0 3277 3267 50139 20965 11537
2153 2152 7377 i
* 44.16.15.0/24 194.85.102.33 0 3277 3267 50139 20965 11537
2153 2152 567 226 * 44.68.52.0/24 194.85.102.33 0 3277 3267
174 12637 i
* 44.130.99.0/24 194.85.102.33 0 3277 3267 13237 28748 i
route-views>
AS7377 is UCSD
AS226 is Los Nettos
AS12637 is Seeweb s.r.l.
AS28748 is Marc Pauls (AlphaCron Datensysteme)
Tim
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net Who is hijacking it?
Or are you talking about if ICANN gets the addresses back because we aren't
using them?
My understanding is that in the past some prefixes I have seen announced from the 44/8
have not been authorized by Brian. I am calling those "hi-jacked".
8:21 p.m.
If you are still talking about announcing prefixes on the net… As I said before,
technically anyone can announce any address space.
If someone is announcing a prefix more specific (i.e. /24 vs a /8) then traffic will go to
the more specific prefix. If two announcements being done for the same address space and
same size prefix, traffic will go to the nearest origin.
Tim
On Jun 5, 2012, at 6:16 PM, Lin Holcomb wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
an additional though it is hard to hijack something that is being used....right?
Lin
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 5, 2012, at 9:00 PM, Tim Pozar <pozar(a)lns.com> wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
On Jun 5, 2012, at 10:40 AM, Tim Pozar wrote:
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net On Jun 4, 2012, at 4:58 PM, Ralph wrote:
BTW… Folks can see the current announced prefixes at Route Views…
route-views>show ip bgp 44.0.0.0/8 subnets | inc 44.
* 44.0.0.0 194.85.102.33 0 3277 3267 50139 20965 11537
2153 2152 7377 i
* 44.16.15.0/24 194.85.102.33 0 3277 3267 50139 20965 11537
2153 2152 567 226 * 44.68.52.0/24 194.85.102.33 0 3277 3267
174 12637 i
* 44.130.99.0/24 194.85.102.33 0 3277 3267 13237 28748 i
route-views>
AS7377 is UCSD
AS226 is Los Nettos
AS12637 is Seeweb s.r.l.
AS28748 is Marc Pauls (AlphaCron Datensysteme)
Tim
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net Who is hijacking it?
Or are you talking about if ICANN gets the addresses back because we aren't
using them?
My understanding is that in the past some prefixes I have seen announced from the 44/8
have not been authorized by Brian. I am calling those "hi-jacked".
4 Jun
4 Jun
3 p.m.
O I understand that it is routable but with the current project via USCD it
is not routable it is stopped at Brian's server which in essence is just a
big linksys router with tunnels all over the world to really less than 3000
live addresses at any given time. This is akin to a company network using
internet tunnels. Those networks have 10.x.x.x addresses. While yes the
remote networks could be reached via UCSD. They really can not right now
from a network outside of the 44 network so in essence we are holding
millions of addresses for lets say at most 10,000 active users. That is
a usage rate of <0.7%
Again I say the tunnel project is a great project dont get me wrong. But
s#!t or get of the pot with the addresses already. I am getting impatient
with all the circular logic on this list. Either let others use the space
or let ICANN decide what to do with them full stop! No more we are talking
to lawyers, no more BS. 30 days come up with a plan or get the issue
turned over to ICANN for a decision.
Lin
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Marius Petrescu <marius(a)yo2loj.ro> wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
44.x.x.x IS routable. The fact that some parts of it are not is a specific
"feature" of 44 usage, implementation and geographic distribution.****
You can reach 44 hosts from the public internet (via ucsd.edu - but this
is nothing special, every subnet has somewhere one or more specific routing
points).****
** **
10.x.x.x (together with 192.168.x.x, 172.16-31.xx.xx and 169.254.0.0) is
not routable. Every provider taropits/drops private and link-local IPs,
since their uniqueness can not be ensured. And this means that 10.x.x.x
addresses will NEVER be reachable except if tunneling is used.****
** **
** **
*From:* 44net-bounces+marius=yo2loj.ro(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu [mailto:
44net-bounces+marius=yo2loj.ro(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu] *On Behalf Of *Lin
Holcomb
*Sent:* Monday, June 04, 2012 19:13
*To:* AMPRNet working group
*Subject:* [44net] 44net is not just for tunneling****
** **
I am still in the holding pattern while ya'll work out things, but I share
Ralphs frustration. I see tunneling as a project that uses 44net not the
whole 44net project. It seems to me that this has been confused by many
and sent the 44net down one road. We need some highways and not 2 lane
dirt roads, sorry but 1200baud or even 9600 baud is a two land dirt road
compaired to 10-300 meg connections I can offer I spoke to several groups
at Dayton and there are many others who would love to have use of the IP
addresses Dstar, highspeed packet ect. (not tunneling all thru UCSD)****
****
The inability to have routeabil addresses from the net back to the
44net( or the lack of desire do to the slow speeds) raises this question
how is it that the current tunneling network would be different if the
44.x.x.x was replaced with a 10.x.x.x and the route point at UCSD was a
44.x.x.x ? Really what advantage does a non-routabile 44 have over a 10
with the way you are currently using the network?****
****
From perspective I see no difference....If I cant see a difference
why would ICANN? Folks this is 1/255 off all of the ipv4 addresses in the
world we are talking about. This is like 220 in the 80s use it or loose
it. ****
****
Lin ****
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
--
Lin Holcomb
Office: +1 404 806 5412
Mobile: +1 404 933 1595
Fax: +1 404 348 4250
9:58 p.m.
as far as ARIN certification goes I spoke with them regarding 44net in December. They
state they have no oversite as it is a direct allocation from ICANN.
11:13 p.m.
Some older allocations were grandfathered in and don't require membership
or dues.
------------------------------
John D. Hays
K7VE
PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223
<http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>
<http://www.facebook.com/john.d.hays>
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Lin Holcomb <lholcomb(a)gmail.com> wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
as far as ARIN certification goes I spoke with them regarding 44net in
December. They state they have no oversite as it is a direct allocation
from ICANN.
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
5 Jun
5 Jun
6:15 a.m.
Last time i looked someone had infact added there subnet to there bgp and broadcast it
----- Original Message -----
From: Marius Petrescu
To: 'AMPRNet working group'
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 5:14 AM
Subject: Re: [44net] 44net is not just for tunneling
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
44.x.x.x IS routable. The fact that some parts of it are not is a specific
"feature" of 44 usage, implementation and geographic distribution.
You can reach 44 hosts from the public internet (via ucsd.edu - but this is nothing
special, every subnet has somewhere one or more specific routing points).
10.x.x.x (together with 192.168.x.x, 172.16-31.xx.xx and 169.254.0.0) is not routable.
Every provider taropits/drops private and link-local IPs, since their uniqueness can not
be ensured. And this means that 10.x.x.x addresses will NEVER be reachable except if
tunneling is used.
From: 44net-bounces+marius=yo2loj.ro(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
[mailto:44net-bounces+marius=yo2loj.ro@hamradio.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Lin Holcomb
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 19:13
To: AMPRNet working group
Subject: [44net] 44net is not just for tunneling
I am still in the holding pattern while ya'll work out things, but I share Ralphs
frustration. I see tunneling as a project that uses 44net not the whole 44net project.
It seems to me that this has been confused by many and sent the 44net down one road. We
need some highways and not 2 lane dirt roads, sorry but 1200baud or even 9600 baud is a
two land dirt road compaired to 10-300 meg connections I can offer I spoke to several
groups at Dayton and there are many others who would love to have use of the IP addresses
Dstar, highspeed packet ect. (not tunneling all thru UCSD)
The inability to have routeabil addresses from the net back to the 44net( or the lack
of desire do to the slow speeds) raises this question how is it that the current tunneling
network would be different if the 44.x.x.x was replaced with a 10.x.x.x and the route
point at UCSD was a 44.x.x.x ? Really what advantage does a non-routabile 44 have over a
10 with the way you are currently using the network?
From perspective I see no difference....If I cant see a difference why would ICANN?
Folks this is 1/255 off all of the ipv4 addresses in the world we are talking about. This
is like 220 in the 80s use it or loose it.
Lin
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
12:06 p.m.
I believe I saw that as well, I think it was a European subnet.
------------------------------
John D. Hays
K7VE
PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223
<http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>
<http://www.facebook.com/john.d.hays>
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 4:15 AM, VK4FQ/VK4TTT Sam <
vk4fq(a)smellyblackdog.com.au> wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
**
Last time i looked someone had infact added there subnet to there bgp and
broadcast it
12:09 p.m.
I think that is in Germany right?
L
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 1:06 PM, K7VE - John <k7ve(a)k7ve.org> wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
I believe I saw that as well, I think it was a European subnet.
------------------------------
John D. Hays
K7VE
PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223
<http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>
<http://www.facebook.com/john.d.hays>
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 4:15 AM, VK4FQ/VK4TTT Sam <
vk4fq(a)smellyblackdog.com.au> wrote:
--
Lin Holcomb
Office: +1 404 806 5412
Mobile: +1 404 933 1595
Fax: +1 404 348 4250
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
**
Last time i looked someone had infact added there subnet to there bgp and
broadcast it
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
4555
days inactive
4557
days old
51 comments
18 participants
participants (18)
-
Andre -
Bill Vodall -
Bjorn Pehrson -
Brian Kantor -
Chris Smith -
David Ranch -
Don Fanning -
Heikki Hannikainen -
Jerry -
K7VE - John -
Lin Holcomb -
Lin Holcomb -
Lin Holcomb -
Marius Petrescu -
Ralph -
Rob Janssen -
Tim Pozar -
VK4FQ/VK4TTT Sam