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