Re: 44/8

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

Not entirely true. A lot of 44/8 subnets are used for transporting amateur radio information across the internet and/or 
for certain limited applications linking amateur radio and the internet. 

Owen


> On Jul 23, 2019, at 11:05, Jimmy Hess <mysidia () gmail com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 9:57 AM Naslund, Steve <SNaslund () medline com> wrote:
> > How about this?  If you guys think your organization (club, group of friends,
> > neighborhood association, whatever...) got screwed over by the ARDC, then
> > why not apply for your own v6 allocation.  You would then have complete
>
> They could likely just use Link-Local V6 space if they wanted.
> Digital linking using space from the 44/8 block would very likely
> often be at 1200 or 9600 baud for many uses.  Each bit of overhead
> expensive,  and IPv6 with its much greater overhead would seem
> uniquely Unsuitable and not a viable replacement for IPv4 usage in cases.
>
> I'm curious how does a "Point of Contact"  change from a Point of Contact
> to the general organization, to "Owner of a resource"?
> My general assumption is one does not follow from the other --- for
> example, Amazon might designate an Admin POC for their /10,  But
> by no means does that confer a right to that individual to auction
> Amazon's /10,  sell the block,  and decide how the sales proceeds will be used.
>
> Its not even that the registry should allow this and say "Well, Amazon,
> tough.. if you didn't want it sold by $POC or their successor against your
> wishes,  then you should have appointed a better POC."
> I would anticipate the registry requiring legal documents from $OrgName
> signed by however many people to verify complete agency over $OrgName
> or someone making a representation;  not just sending an e-mail
> or pushing a button.
>
> And if there is no organization name,   then it may just be that
> there isn't a single person in the world  who has been vested
> with authorization to represent an item registered "for use by a community"
> or "the public in general" in matters like that.
>
>
> And why should any one organization get to monetize AMPRnet and
> decide the use of any funds for monetization?   They may be a public
> benefit, but how do you establish they are the _right_ and _only_
> public benefit,  that the public deems the most proper for advancing
> development for the greatest public good in IP/digital networking
> communications?
>
> The mention of  "Scholarships" and "Grants" to be decided by the
> board of the entity that seemed to unilaterally decide to  "Sell" a
> shared resource that was provided for free -  Sounds like an
> idea biased towards "academics" and certain kinds of researchers
> -- as in more most likely university academics --- sounds suspect.
> Perhaps  Scholarships mostly benefit an individual,  and Grants could
> be decided by an entity more well-known and reputable to the
> community such as one vetted by IARU or ARRL, anyways.
>
> Usage from the 44/8 space chosen is not necessarily co-ordinated with nor
> were AMPR networks created within 44/8 ever  required to be approved or
> co-ordinated by any central registry contacts that were shown for the block,
> and the AMPR users can simply continue ignoring any IANA changes to 44/8;
> just like you probably would if  some random contact on a registry record
> decided they were owner, and auctioned off   "192.168.0.0/17"  reducing
> the shared 192.168 allocation to 192.168.128.0/17  only.
>
> They may simply go by the decisions of whichever user, vendor, or
> experimenter makes the linking technology in question for deciding the
> IP address co-ordination ---   For example,  the Icom or Yaesu network
> may designate their own addressing authority for users of their digital
> linking system,  and there is a good chance they already do.
>
> I think there is a false belief here in the first place that the community
> in question which is separate from the internet relies upon IANA or ARIN
> registry information to continue existing or using address space;  Or that the
> contact has any "ownership",  "resource holdership",  or  "network management"
> purpose,  for anything related to 44/8  other than a purpose of
> co-ordination  for
> a SUBSET of the likely AMPRnet  44/8  users  when considering
> CERTAIN applications of AMPRnet  where interoperability with internet was
> a goal.
>
> And 44/8 commonly for discrete isolated networks;  similar to RFC1918,
> But predating RFC1918  by almost two decades.    Consider that
> 10.0.0.0/8   COULD have been a substitute for many 44/8 applications.
>
> My understanding is this 44/8 allocation predates the public internet;
> and its normal everyday usage is completely separate from public internet
> IP having been actually utilized on this space first.   People sought an
> allocation from IANA originally,  but that does not give IANA nor
> any contact listed by IANA "ownership" or  "management" authority
> over usage of this IP address space  outside of their registry which
> is supposed to accurately cover the internet: but the AMPRnet is Not
> a block of networks on the internet,  and not under the purview
> of IETF or IANA, anyways  ---  its just a community that uses
> TCP/IP mostly in isolated discrete networks which can be neither
> allocated,  nor managed,  nor get their individual assignments
> within 44/8 from any central authority.
>
> Although ARDC provides an option to do so --- these users
> co-ordinating their assignments already get them from ARDC,
> so the users requiring internet interoperability already stipulate
> to ARDC's co-ordination.
>
> Few projects would likely muster BGP access anyways, and would
> most likely be NAT'ing any 44/8 space if tunneling over the internet.
>
> I'm not sure any change to this ever listed by IANA should actually
> be recognized by. _other_ AMPRnet users,  since there is no impact to
> isolated networks using this space ---  anyone impacted will
> probably just choose to ignore the registry change and
> don't really care what "the internet" Whois says about the 44/8.
>
> In a way; it just means the IANA registry data became
> corrupted/Less accurate  Due to IANA's failure to clearly
> state a policy for the maintenance of the allocations and/or
> ARDC  "converting"  ownership or  being allowed to take
> up a false pretense of ownership of the registry allocation.
>
> --
> -JH