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 <mysi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 9:57 AM Naslund, Steve <snasl...@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