Re: 44/8

> On Aug 31, 2019, at 09:23 , Doug Barton wrote: > > On 8/27/19 8:52 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> On Jul 26, 2019, at 21:59 , Doug Barton >> > wrote: >>> >>> Responding to no one in particular, and not representing views of any >>> current or former employer ... >>>

Re: 44/8

On 8/27/19 8:52 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: On Jul 26, 2019, at 21:59 , Doug Barton > wrote: Responding to no one in particular, and not representing views of any current or former employer ... I find all of this hullabaloo to be ... fascinating. A little background

Re: 44/8

t in terms of anticipating this action. When we trust people, we don’t expect them to act outside of certain bounds, as I did not expect that these particular people would act in this particular manner. It is a denial of human nature to claim that we can not allow our trust to cloud our judgment wh

Re: 44/8

ese people, and you cannot let that acquaintance cloud your judgment here. If these were people you did not know and they did this, you'd call it what it is. If an acquaintance does the same action, is it not the same? Does it pass the smell test that 44/8 was used, with no benefit to ARDC

Re: 44/8

of them having space to play ... errr, experiment with. But did they ever, > really, need a /8? Historically, what percentage of that space has ever > actually been used? And as Dave Conrad pointed out, given all of the > "historical" allocations that have been revisited and/or r

Re: 44/8

Ambauen KI7SBI On Wed, Jul 24, 2019, 07:19 Joe Hamelin wrote: > On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:46 PM Owen DeLong wrote: > >> Not entirely true. A lot of 44/8 subnets are used for transporting >> amateur radio information across the internet and/or for certain limited >> appl

Re: Feasibility of using Class E space for public unicast (was re: 44/8)

On 7/27/19 2:18 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > something is broken on the nanog list. usually we have this discussion > twice a year. this time it may have been a couple of years gap. what > broke? 44/8. Sucked up all the oxygen.

Re: Feasibility of using Class E space for public unicast (was re: 44/8)

something is broken on the nanog list. usually we have this discussion twice a year. this time it may have been a couple of years gap. what broke? randy

Re: Feasibility of using Class E space for public unicast (was re: 44/8)

In article <23868.39953.398906.559...@gargle.gargle.howl> you write: >Not particularly interested in arguing for using Class E space but >this "not compatible" reasoning would seem to have applied to IPv6 in >the early 2000s (whatever, pick an earlier date when little supported >IPv6) just as well,

Feasibility of using Class E space for public unicast (was re: 44/8)

On July 26, 2019 at 21:19 do...@dougbarton.us (Doug Barton) wrote: > All of this, plus what Fred Baker said upthread. > > When I was running the IANA in the early 2000's we discussed this issue with > many different experts, hardware company reps, etc. Not only was there a > software issue

Re: Feasibility of using Class E space for public unicast (was re: 44/8)

On 2019-07-26 11:01 PM, William Herrin wrote: On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 10:36 PM Doug Barton > wrote: > So I'll just say this ... if you think that the advice I received from all of the many people I spoke to (all of whom are/were a lot smarter than me on this topic) w

Re: Feasibility of using Class E space for public unicast (was re: 44/8)

On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 10:36 PM Doug Barton wrote: > So I'll just say this ... if you think that the advice I received from all of the many people I spoke to (all of whom are/were a lot smarter than me on this topic) was wrong, and that putting the same LOE into IPv6 adoption that it would have t

Re: Feasibility of using Class E space for public unicast (was re: 44/8)

On 2019-07-26 10:07 PM, William Herrin wrote: On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 9:21 PM Doug Barton > wrote: > When I was running the IANA in the early 2000's we discussed this issue with many different experts, hardware company reps, etc. Not only was there a software issue t

Re: Feasibility of using Class E space for public unicast (was re: 44/8)

On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 9:21 PM Doug Barton wrote: > When I was running the IANA in the early 2000's we discussed this issue with many different experts, hardware company reps, etc. Not only was there a software issue that was insurmountable for all practical purposes (pretty much every TCP/IP sta

Re: 44/8

cept of them having space to play ... errr, experiment with. But did they ever, /really, /need a /8? Historically, what percentage of that space has ever actually been used? And as Dave Conrad pointed out, given all of the "historical" allocations that have been revisited and/or repu

Feasibility of using Class E space for public unicast (was re: 44/8)

On 2019-07-22 6:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: On Jul 22, 2019, at 12:15 , Naslund, Steve > wrote: I think the Class E block has been covered before.  There were two reasons to not re-allocate it. 1.A lot of existing code base does not know how to handle those addresse

Re: 44/8

On 2019-07-23 10:43 AM, William Herrin wrote: On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 7:32 AM Naslund, Steve > wrote: In defense of John and ARIN, if you did not recognize that ARDC represented an authority for this resource, who would be? The American Radio Relay League

Re: 240/4 (Re: 44/8)

> On Jul 22, 2019, at 9:15 PM, Ross Tajvar wrote: > >> Editor's note: This draft has not been submitted to any formal >> process. It may change significantly if it is ever submitted. >> You are reading it because we trust you and we value your >> opinions. *Please do not recirc

Re: Ancient history (was Re: 44/8)

On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 12:43 PM David Conrad wrote: > In some cases, there was a ‘caretaker’ assigned (ARRL for 44/8 and @Home > for 24/8) who acted as a pseudo-registry: they did (or at least were supposed > to do) sub-assignments for entities that met (IANA- and pseudo-registry-)

Ancient history (was Re: 44/8)

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 fr

Re: 44/8

- Original Message - > From: "Randy Bush" > my deep sympathies go out to those folk with real work to do whose mail > user agents do not have a `delete thread` key sequence. For some people, Randy, this *is* real work, even if they're not getting paid for it. And didn't you, like, co-au

Re: 44/8

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:46 PM Owen DeLong wrote: > 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. > See HamWAN.org for the Seattl

Re: 44/8

In addition to my day job I also run IT for a 501(c)(3) ham "club" that does amateur radio based public service and emergency communications. Our annual cash donations are about $100. We could never afford an IPv6 allocation or an AS number. I wish we could because I'd love to use some of the AMPRN

Re: 44/8

On 23/07/2019 02:23, Michel Py wrote: > This is the last attempt that I remember : > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilson-class-e-02 Of interest can be : https://www.netdevconf.org/0x13/session.html?talk-ipv4-unicast-expansions signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: 44/8

> On Jul 23, 2019, at 18:44, Owen DeLong wrote: > > 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. In the mid 90's we (a

Re: 44/8

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 wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 9:5

Re: 44/8

hey 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 replac

Re: 44/8

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 7:32 AM Naslund, Steve wrote: > In defense of John and ARIN, if you did not recognize that ARDC > represented an authority for this resource, who would be? > The American Radio Relay League (ARRL) is THE organization which represents Hams in regulatory matters in the U.S.

RE: 44/8

So, if ARIN allocates a v6 assignment to ARDC how do you plan to use it without a router or BGP. Whether it's v4 or v6 you need to route it somewhere. If you have a PC, you can have a router and if you don't have a PC you probably don't need to worry about any of this. If your club can't aff

Re: 44/8

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 10:05 AM Nathan Brookfield < nathan.brookfi...@simtronic.com.au> wrote: > Yeah because v6 only is the answer plus tour assuming all of these clubs > have routers and BGP and the money to get an allocation and ASN > If any amateur radio folks want to use a v6 block that

Re: 44/8

Yeah because v6 only is the answer plus tour assuming all of these clubs have routers and BGP and the money to get an allocation and ASN On 23 Jul 2019, at 22:59, Naslund, Steve wrote: How about this? If you guys think your organization (club, group of friends, neighborhood association, w

RE: 44/8

Why bother purchasing space? CGNAT or v6 would both be better ways to go and future proof. The v4 space you purchase today will be essentially worthless. Steven Naslund Chicago IL >I really just want to know how I can purchase some more of that 44. >space :)

Re: 44/8

I really just want to know how I can purchase some more of that 44. space :) On 7/23/19 10:56 AM, Naslund, Steve 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 you

RE: 44/8

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 control over its handling and never have to worry about it again. If yo

RE: 44/8

>I can guarantee you that Akamai is very much run by beancounters in addition >to engineers. I have first hand experience with that. > >I can also assure you that it’s quite unlikely that any of Comcast, Netflix, >Facebook, Google, AT&T, T-Mobile, or Verizon just to name a few of the biggest >ar

RE: 44/8

In defense of John and ARIN, if you did not recognize that ARDC represented an authority for this resource, who would be? The complaints would have been even more shrill if ARIN took it upon themselves to “represent” the amateur radio community and had denied the request or re-allocated the ass

Re: 240/4 (Re: 44/8)

> Editor's note: This draft has not been submitted to any formal > process. It may change significantly if it is ever submitted. > You are reading it because we trust you and we value your > opinions. *Please do not recirculate it.* Please join us in > testing patches an

Re: 240/4 (Re: 44/8)

Most importantly, if you're running out of 1918 space is a totally different problem than running out of global routable space. If you patch common OSes for 240/4 usability but a significant fraction of say unpatched OSes, IOT, consumer routers, old random net cruft necessary for infrastructure ar

Re: 240/4 (Re: 44/8)

> On Jul 22, 2019, at 20:14 , Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > > On Mon, 22 Jul 2019, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> 2. It was decided that the effort to modify each and every IP >> stack in order to facilitate use of this relatively small block (16 /8s >> being evaluated against a global >>

Re: 44/8

> On Jul 22, 2019, at 18:54 , John Curran wrote: > > On 22 Jul 2019, at 9:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> ... >> The only thing I dispute here is that I’m pretty sure that the principals of >> ARDC did request ARIN to make ARDC the controlling organization of the >> resource. The question here

Re: 44/8 RDNS is still broken!

On 7/22/19 10:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > That would be ARDC, not ADCR, but here’s the problem… As far as most of us > are concerned, it was inappropriate for ARIN to hand them control of the > block in the first place. We were fine with them doing the record keeping > and providing POC services, b

240/4 (Re: 44/8)

On Mon, 22 Jul 2019, Owen DeLong wrote: 2. It was decided that the effort to modify each and every IP stack in order to facilitate use of this relatively small block (16 /8s being evaluated against a global run rate at the time of roughly 2.5 /8s per month, mostly

Re: 44/8

So the elephant in the room: now that Precedent has been set - how do I purchase some of the 44 block? :)

Re: 44/8

> On Jul 22, 2019, at 15:33 , Michel Py wrote: > >>> William Herrin wrote : >>> The IPv6 loonies killed all IETF proposals to convert it to unicast space. >>> It remains reserved/unusable. > > +1 > >> Fred Baker wrote : >> Speaking for myself, I don't see the point. It doesn't solve anythin

Re: 44/8

> On Jul 22, 2019, at 14:03 , John Curran wrote: > > On 22 Jul 2019, at 4:44 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: >> ... >> There's a bit of magic. If ARIN's board of directors decided to up and start >> taking people's existing IPv4 allocations and selling them to Amazon to beef >> up the ARIN schol

Re: 44/8

> On Jul 22, 2019, at 12:24 , John Curran wrote: > > On 22 Jul 2019, at 1:16 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> >> Respectfully John, this wasn't a DBA or an individual figuring the org name >> field on the old email template couldn't be blank. A class-A was allocated >> to a _purpose_. > > Bil

Re: 44/8

> On Jul 22, 2019, at 13:36 , John Curran wrote: > > On 22 Jul 2019, at 4:17 PM, Matthew Kaufman > wrote: >> >> The change in character/purpose of the network has operational impacts to >> me, and as such should have been done as an IANA action (as the original >>

Re: 44/8

On 22 Jul 2019, at 9:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > ... > The only thing I dispute here is that I’m pretty sure that the principals of > ARDC did request ARIN to make ARDC the controlling organization of the > resource. The question here is whether or not it was appropriate or correct > for ARIN t

Re: 44/8

- On Jul 22, 2019, at 5:54 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Hi Owen, >> On Jul 21, 2019, at 12:28 , Sabri Berisha wrote: >> Only when it becomes cheaper to go IPv6 than to use legacy V4 will V6 be >> adopted >> by large corporations. Well, the ones that are governed by beancounters

Re: 44/8

t; described by ICANN ICP-2. > > OK, I'll bite then. Which RIR allocates address space to trans-national > interests > such as the UN or NATO? Given that Matthew Kaufman states a /15 out of 44/8 > was allocated to a German organization, it certainly sounds like we're

Re: 44/8

> On Jul 22, 2019, at 12:15 , Naslund, Steve wrote: > > I think the Class E block has been covered before. There were two reasons to > not re-allocate it. > > 1. A lot of existing code base does not know how to handle those > addresses and may refuse to route them or will otherwise mi

Re: 44/8

> On Jul 22, 2019, at 10:16 , William Herrin wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 6:02 AM John Curran > wrote: > > On 21 Jul 2019, at 7:32 AM, William Herrin > > wrote: > > > Having read their explanation, I think the folks involved had good > >

Re: 44/8

> On Jul 21, 2019, at 12:28 , Sabri Berisha wrote: > > - On Jul 21, 2019, at 4:48 AM, nanog nanog@nanog.org wrote: > > Hi, > >> All of this puts more pressure on the access networks to keep IPv4 running >> and >> inflates the price of the remaining IPv4 addresses. > > Exactly. Which me

Re: 44/8

dress space to trans-national interests such as the UN or NATO? Given that Matthew Kaufman states a /15 out of 44/8 was allocated to a German organization, it certainly sounds like we're well into transnational territory here. pgpeG1K9uw9Td.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: 44/8

> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:02 PM Jerry Cloe wrote: > > > There's already widespread use (abuse ?) of DOD /8's. > > T-Mobile commonly assigns 26/8 space (and others) to > > customers and nat's it. > --- cb.li...@gmail.com wrote: > From: Ca By > > My understanding is that is not currently comm

Re: 44/8

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:31 PM Scott Weeks wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:02 PM Jerry Cloe wrote: > > > There's already widespread use (abuse ?) of DOD /8's. > > T-Mobile commonly assigns 26/8 space (and others) to > > customers and nat's it. > > > --- cb.li...@gmail.com wrote: > From

RE: 44/8

>> Michel Py wrote : >> As an extension of RFC1918, it would have solved the questionable and >> nevertheless widespread squatting of 30/8 and other un-announced DoD blocks >> because 10/8 is not big enough for some folks. > Jerry Cloe wrote : > There's already widespread use (abuse ?) of DOD /8

Re: 44/8

On Mon Jul 22, 2019 at 06:33:17PM -0400, Paul Timmins wrote: > And after 75 messages, nobody has asked the obvious question. When is > ARDC going to acquire IPv6 resources on our behalf? Instead being all > worried about legacy resources we're highly underutilizing. I didn't want to spoil a good

Re: 44/8

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:02 PM Jerry Cloe wrote: > There's already widespread use (abuse ?) of DOD /8's. > T-Mobile commonly assigns 26/8 space (and others) to > customers and nat's it. --- cb.li...@gmail.com wrote: From: Ca By My understanding is that is not currently commonly the ca

RE: 44/8

From:Michel Py As an extension of RFC1918, it would have solved the questionable and nevertheless widespread squatting of 30/8 and other un-announced DoD blocks because 10/8 is not big enough for some folks. --- je...@jtcloe.net wrote: From: Jerry Cloe There's already widespread use (abuse

Re: 44/8

pv6launch.org/apps/ipv6week/measurement/images/graphs/T-MobileUSA.png > > > -Original message- > *From:* Michel Py > *Sent:* Mon 07-22-2019 05:36 pm > *Subject:* RE: 44/8 > *To:* William Herrin ; > *CC:* North American Network Operators‘ Group ; > > As an ex

RE: 44/8

There's already widespread use (abuse ?) of DOD /8's. T-Mobile commonly assigns 26/8 space (and others) to customers and nat's it.   -Original message- From:Michel Py Sent:Mon 07-22-2019 05:36 pm Subject:RE: 44/8 To:William Herrin ; CC:North American Network Operators‘

RE: 44/8

>> William Herrin wrote : >> The IPv6 loonies killed all IETF proposals to convert it to unicast space. >> It remains reserved/unusable. +1 > Fred Baker wrote : > Speaking for myself, I don't see the point. It doesn't solve anything, As an extension of RFC1918, it would have solved the question

Re: 44/8

And after 75 messages, nobody has asked the obvious question. When is ARDC going to acquire IPv6 resources on our behalf? Instead being all worried about legacy resources we're highly underutilizing. Ham Radio is supposed to be about pushing the art forward. Let's do that. -KC8QAY On 7/22/19

Re: 44/8

The fundamental reason given, from several sources, was that our experience with IPv4 address trading says that no matter how many IPv4 addresses we create or recover, we won't obviate the need for a replacement protocol. The reasons for that are two: (1) IPv4 isn't forward compatible with anyth

Re: 44/8

On 22 Jul 2019, at 4:44 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > ... > There's a bit of magic. If ARIN's board of directors decided to up and start > taking people's existing IPv4 allocations and selling them to Amazon to beef > up the ARIN scholarship fund, the recourse would include going to IANA and > n

Re: 44/8

On 7/22/19 12:15 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote: > 1. A lot of existing code base does not know how to handle those > addresses and may refuse to route them or will otherwise mishandle > them. Not to mention all the legacy devices that barely do IPv4 at all, and know nothing about IPv6. Legacy dev

Re: 44/8

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 1:36 PM John Curran wrote: > On 22 Jul 2019, at 4:17 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > > ... > > That's why a real RIR for this space would have had a policy development > process where *the community* could weigh in on ideas like "sell of 1/4 of > it so we can have a big end

Re: 44/8

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 2:47 PM John Curran wrote: > > In which case, I’d recommend contacting Hank Magnuski to obtain > documentation of your particular interpretation, as there are no published > policy documents which indicate anything other than an allocation from the > general purpose IPv4 s

Re: 44/8

silently deleting the thread isn't noise. posting that was, randy. t On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:23 PM Randy Bush wrote: > my deep sympathies go out to those folk with real work to do whose mail > user agents do not have a `delete thread` key sequence. >

Re: 44/8

On 22 Jul 2019, at 4:17 PM, Matthew Kaufman mailto:matt...@matthew.at>> wrote: The change in character/purpose of the network has operational impacts to me, and as such should have been done as an IANA action (as the original purpose was arguably also set by IANA action, when IANA was Jon Poste

Re: 44/8

my deep sympathies go out to those folk with real work to do whose mail user agents do not have a `delete thread` key sequence.

Re: 44/8

The change in character/purpose of the network has operational impacts to me, and as such should have been done as an IANA action (as the original purpose was arguably also set by IANA action, when IANA was Jon Postel, and simply not documented very well): I am the network administrator for a 501(

Re: 44/8

PAN-A [JM292] R 44.rrr.rrr.rrr AMPRNET [PK28] 45.rrr.rrr.rrr Reserved [NIC] ... == RFC 1166 Updated by RFC 5737, creation of documentation blocks. No references to 44/8. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5737 ==

Re: 44/8

On 22 Jul 2019, at 3:35 PM, William Herrin mailto:b...@herrin.us>> wrote: On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 12:24 PM John Curran mailto:jcur...@arin.net>> wrote: > Nothing in the publicly vetted policies demanded that you attach > organizations to the purpose-based allocations You’ve suggested that this

Re: 44/8

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 12:24 PM John Curran wrote: > > Nothing in the publicly vetted policies demanded that you attach > organizations to the purpose-based allocations > > You’ve suggested that this network was some special “purpose-based” > allocation, but failed to point to any actual policy

Re: 44/8

On 22 Jul 2019, at 1:16 PM, William Herrin wrote: > > Respectfully John, this wasn't a DBA or an individual figuring the org name > field on the old email template couldn't be blank. A class-A was allocated to > a _purpose_. Bill - The block in question is a /8 research assignment made with

Re: 44/8

lliam Herrin" >>> >>> > Personally I've never heard of ARDC. >>> >>> Amateur Radio Digital Communications is the name that's been on 44/8 every >>> time I've ever looked at the /8 list, which goes back 2 decades or more. >>&g

RE: 44/8

I think the Class E block has been covered before. There were two reasons to not re-allocate it. 1. A lot of existing code base does not know how to handle those addresses and may refuse to route them or will otherwise mishandle them. 2. It was decided that squeezing every bit of sp

Re: 44/8

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 12:04 PM William Herrin wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 11:56 AM andrew.brant via NANOG > wrote: > >> Whatever happened to the entire class E block? I know it's reserved for >> future use, but sounds like that future is now given that we've exhausted >> all existing allo

Re: 44/8

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 11:56 AM andrew.brant via NANOG wrote: > Whatever happened to the entire class E block? I know it's reserved for > future use, but sounds like that future is now given that we've exhausted > all existing allocations. > The IPv6 loonies killed all IETF proposals to convert

Re: 44/8

/19 12:16 PM (GMT-06:00) To: John Curran Cc: North American Network Operators' Group Subject: Re: 44/8 On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 6:02 AM John Curran wrote:> On 21 Jul 2019, at 7:32 AM, William Herrin wrote:> > Having read their explanation, I think the folks involved had good

Re: 44/8

: > On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 9:26 PM Jay R. Ashworth wrote: > >> - Original Message - >> > From: "William Herrin" >> >> > Personally I've never heard of ARDC. >> >> Amateur Radio Digital Communications is the name that's

Re: 44/8

On 7/22/19 10:16 AM, William Herrin wrote: Respectfully John, this wasn't a DBA or an individual figuring the org name field on the old email template couldn't be blank. A class-A was allocated to a _purpose_. You've not only allowed but encouraged that valuable resource to be reassigned to a

Re: 44/8

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 6:02 AM John Curran wrote: > On 21 Jul 2019, at 7:32 AM, William Herrin wrote: > > Having read their explanation, I think the folks involved had good > > reasons and the best intentions but this stinks like fraud to me. Worse, > > it looks like ARIN was complicit in the fr

Re: 44/8

On 21 Jul 2019, at 7:32 AM, William Herrin wrote: > > Having read their explanation, I think the folks involved had good reasons > and the best intentions but this stinks like fraud to me. Worse, it looks > like ARIN was complicit in the fraud -- encouraging and then supporting the > folks inv

Re: 44/8

- On Jul 21, 2019, at 4:48 AM, nanog nanog@nanog.org wrote: Hi, > All of this puts more pressure on the access networks to keep IPv4 running and > inflates the price of the remaining IPv4 addresses. Exactly. Which means that the problem will solve itself. Why is it taking so long to get IPv

Re: 44/8

On 7/21/19 7:32 AM, William Herrin wrote: > Yeah... It just seems like holding an asset in trust for a population and > selling that asset without consulting that population (or at least > consulting the organizations the population commonly understands to > represent them) is very fishy business.

Re: 44/8

gt; >> - Original Message - >> > From: "William Herrin" >> >> > Personally I've never heard of ARDC. >> >> Amateur Radio Digital Communications is the name that's been on 44/8 >> every >> time I've ever looked at

Re: 44/8

On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 9:26 PM Jay R. Ashworth wrote: > - Original Message - > > From: "William Herrin" > > > Personally I've never heard of ARDC. > > Amateur Radio Digital Communications is the name that's been on 44/8 every > time I&#

Re: 44/8

- Original Message - > From: "William Herrin" > Personally I've never heard of ARDC. Amateur Radio Digital Communications is the name that's been on 44/8 every time I've ever looked at the /8 list, which goes back 2 decades or more. I never assumed it

Re: 44/8

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 6:02 PM Owen DeLong wrote: > I honestly don’t know who is behind ARDC (the organization), but some of > the names bandied about are people I know and believe to be deserving of > the benefit of the doubt. As such, I’m still trying to learn more before I > go full tilt host

Re: 44/8

information or knowledge of the history of 44/8 to do the same. Owen > On Jul 19, 2019, at 08:34, Matt Harris wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 10:29 AM John Curran wrote: > >> >> Matt - >> >> Chris is correct. Those who received IPv4 address bloc

Re: 44/9, 44.128/10 (was 44/8)

On 7/19/19 2:17 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Fri, 19 Jul 2019, Phil Karn wrote: > >>> And one of the principal people in the network telescope project was >>> KC, who also weaseled herself onto the ARDC board without even holding >>> an amateur radio license.  Conflict of interest here, ho

Re: 44/8

with no printed name, using an illegible signature. How does an organization incorporated years after 44/8 was set aside for amatuer radio use end up "owning" it enough to have the right to sell a portion of it?

Re: 44/8

Please take this off-topic argument off the Nanog list. -mel via cell > On Jul 19, 2019, at 11:17 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > > On Fri, 19 Jul 2019, Phil Karn wrote: > >>> And one of the principal people in the network telescope project was KC, >>> who also weaseled herself onto the ARDC

Re: 44/8

On Fri, 19 Jul 2019, Phil Karn wrote: And one of the principal people in the network telescope project was KC, who also weaseled herself onto the ARDC board without even holding an amateur radio license.  Conflict of interest here, holy carp. You are not in possession of all the facts. KC (K

Re: 44/8

> And one of the principal people in the network telescope project was > KC, who > also weaseled herself onto the ARDC board without even holding an amateur > radio license.  Conflict of interest here, holy carp. You are not in possession of all the facts. KC (Kim Claffy) is KC6KCC. --Phil

Re: 44/8

anding is that the establishment of an ARIN RSA is required prior to the transfer of a block or a portion or a block via ARIN (such as the transfer of 44.192/10). Thus, this would mean that the 44/8 block is now governed by an (well, more than one, now that it's split) ARIN RSA (or LRSA) wh

Re: 44/8

Good deal. Thanks John, have a great weekend! On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 11:52 AM John Curran wrote: > On 19 Jul 2019, at 11:46 AM, Tom Beecher wrote: > > > Understood on specifics. But can you comment on the general ARIN policy on > the topic? My understanding was that once a legacy resource was

  1   2   >