Mailing List Archive

1 2 3 4 5  View All
RE: 44/8 [ In reply to ]
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 assignment. IANA would have been just as out of line making decisions for the community. In my opinion the community is at fault for not recognizing the value of their assigned resource and putting mechanisms in place for its management (or maybe just not understanding the power that the ARDC represented). At the end of the day, someone has to represent an authority for an assignment and ARDC was as close as you could get. About the closest other organization would have been someone like the ARRL but even then you have a US organization representing a worldwide loosely coupled community. I suppose there is a UN basis for worldwide management but does anyone here think that any UN organization would be a trustworthy administrator.

I think the decision to sell off some of the block makes sense given the size and current usage. After all, by definition amateur radio is about advancing the state of the art and experimenting, v6 allocations are not scarce at all. The problem here is that the amateur radio community does appear to think they were well represented by the ARDC which I would have to say is their fault. The original allocation was made a long time ago when there was so much space that it had no real value. What everyone seems to be bent out of shape about is that there was a value to this block and someone got paid for it. This does not seem to put the community in peril of running out of space. How you share in the dividends of this sale is another unsolvable problem. How do you allocate this dividend to a worldwide community with no centralized membership database?

The original assignment of this block seems to have been a couple of people with an idea that was forward looking. The fact that the authority for something like that was somewhat murky is not at all surprising. In general, a lot of older assignments become clouded and disputable through numerous acquisitions and changes in control especially at a time that those assignment were not seen as having real value. ARIN is in a sticky position here no matter what call they make. I don’t envy John’s job in the least ?

Steven Naslund
Chicago IL

>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 an organization, this ARDC, and then >treated the organization as a proxy for the purpose. No one asked you to do that. Nothing in the publicly vetted policies demanded that you attach >organizations to the purpose-based allocations and certainly nothing demanded that you grant such organizations identical control over the >resources as the control possessed by folks who were the intended direct recipients of assignments.
>
>This is a rare day, indeed, but I find myself largely agreeing with Bill here.
>
>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 to do so.
>
>IMHO, it was not. IMHO, ARIN should have recognized that this particular block was issued for a purpose and not to an organization or individual. That contacts >were volunteers from the community that agreed to take on a task. Even if the block ended up contactless, it should not have been open to claim and certainly not >to 8.3 or 8.4 partial transfer to another organization away from that purpose.
RE: 44/8 [ In reply to ]
>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 are managed without >due consideration of input from the bean counters. (I’d bet at each of those companies, the day that engineer beats beancounter in a disagreement is rare, indeed).
>
>Each and every one of those large companies has deployed IPv6. Some to a greater extent than others. Facebook and T-Mo stand out as the prime examples, having gone all->IPv6 in as much of their network as practicable today.
>
>The problem with the approach you are taking to IPv6 cost-benefit analysis is that your claim of no ROI doesn’t actually hold true.
>
>The cost savings from a full-on deployment of IPv6 and moving to IPv4 as a service at the edge can be significant. They are hard to capture without very good cost accounting >and the problem really tends to be that engineers are lousy cost-accountants and good cost accountants have a hard time understanding what IPv6 brings to the table.
>
>It’s also true that some fraction (though now diminishing) of the ROI from a v6 deployment cannot be realized until some other parties also deploy IPv6, but there’s good news >on that front, too… More and more of those parties are realizing the need to deploy IPv6.
>
>Owen

The common denominator for all of the companies listed is the size of their deployment. The carriers needed to handle very large scale mobile networks that they could not possibly get a large enough allocation for. The alternative CGN gear would have doubtless been extremely expensive as well. They also have the engineering and financial horsepower to hold their suppliers to the fire to make all of the devices together well with v6. Another advantage they have is that the lifespan of a mobile device and it's infrastructure is pretty short so they are not dealing with a lot of legacy devices. It helped a lot that the v4 allocations were drying up at around the same time that the mobile networks were in full upgrade mode deploying 4G and LTE.

Facebook, Google, and Netflix deployed v6 mostly because there were so many mobile devices using it that it could not be ignored. These are all market/financial forces at work, not some pioneering engineering drive. In the corporate world we have to provide a reason to spend money so unless there is a business drive to deploy v6, it's not going to happen. That pressure is mounting but not at a breaking point yet. The two main pressures would be the cost of expanding into more v4 space and what your customers want. The move to cloud based services means that the corporate demand for v4 space is actually decreasing since they are not hosting as many Internet facing applications as they once were. They don't need to move to v6 since their cloud providers are doing it for them. There is also a move in a lot of corporate networks to get away from dedicated circuits and use the Internet as transport. As this happens, the corporate network does not even care that the service provider is using v6 transport to carry a tunnel. V4 vs v6 becomes a non-issue over time and the pressure to change everything over to v6 goes away since the v4 space is not growing.

Steven Naslund
Chicago IL
RE: 44/8 [ In reply to ]
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 you are not sure how to get started, visit ARINs website. It is not that difficult or expensive and it would not be hard to justify.

Steven Naslund
Chicago IL

>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
Re: 44/8 [ In reply to ]
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 your own v6 allocation. You would then have complete control over its handling and never have to worry about it again. If you are not sure how to get started, visit ARINs website. It is not that difficult or expensive and it would not be hard to justify.
>
> Steven Naslund
> Chicago IL
>
>> 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
>
RE: 44/8 [ In reply to ]
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 [ In reply to ]
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 <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 control over its handling and never have to worry about it again. If you are not sure how to get started, visit ARINs website. It is not that difficult or expensive and it would not be hard to justify.

Steven Naslund
Chicago IL

> 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
Re: 44/8 [ In reply to ]
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 10:05 AM Nathan Brookfield <
Nathan.Brookfield@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's been allocated to
them for amateur radio/digital comms/etc purposes, there are probably
plenty of folks who already have routers/bgp sessions/ASNs who'd be happy
to announce their space for them at no cost. If someone doing so were to
ask me nicely, I really can't think of a reason not to. It doesn't really
cost me anything and no one's pushing enough traffic on ham bands to amount
to enough to even think about the bandwidth usage under most circumstances.
There's plenty of overlap between hams and people who want to support the
hobby, and network operators with resources to spare. And if things don't
work out, since it's your own space, you can take it and go elsewhere if
needed - it can't be sold out from under you.

Additionally, one can run their own bgp with extremely inexpensive gear
these days. Ubiquiti's edgerouters will do it (around $100 USD), or a
whitebox running pfsense or any number of other FOSS operating systems. You
don't need multiple full tables from several providers plus a half-dozen IX
sessions to announce a /48 for ham radio use. That same low-cost gear can
tunnel the space to wherever you need it, too, if needed. Remember, we're
almost always talking about very very low bandwidth applications here on
amateur spectrum.
RE: 44/8 [ In reply to ]
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 afford the address allocation then you are probably in too expensive a hobby. That is one of the cheaper things you need to get to do radio data.

Steven Naslund
Chicago IL

>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....
Re: 44/8 [ In reply to ]
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 7:32 AM Naslund, Steve <SNaslund@medline.com> 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. and is well known to Hams worldwide.

You don't have to look very far. Just ask any ham.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

--
William Herrin
bill@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/
Re: 44/8 [ In reply to ]
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
Re: 44/8 [ In reply to ]
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 AMPRNET space for some of our operations. Our ISP doesn't support IPv6
yet, so I won't even get into that discussion.

While we don't have cash, we frequently get donations in the form of [used]
equipment. Our entire network backbone is Cisco. Our radio systems are
almost exclusively Motorola public safety grade hardware. Our Internet
connection is paid for by a served agency. People are happy to donate their
time, services, and hardware to us; just not cash. Saying that not having
cash on hand means you don't have the resources to do packet radio is not
necessarily true.

-Matt, NM1B


On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 12:44 PM Naslund, Steve <SNaslund@medline.com>
wrote:

> 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
> afford the address allocation then you are probably in too expensive a
> hobby. That is one of the cheaper things you need to get to do radio data.
>
> Steven Naslund
> Chicago IL
>
> >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....
>
>
>
>
Re: 44/8 [ In reply to ]
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
Re: 44/8 [ In reply to ]
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:46 PM Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> 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 Seattle area multi-megabit ham network on 44/8 space.
--
Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, +1 (360) 474-7474
Re: 44/8 [ In reply to ]
> On Jul 23, 2019, at 18:44, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> 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 (an ISP) announced the space for WI's packet community. If it didn't need internet connectivity, you wouldn't need the IP addresses, necessarily.

Also, from the AMPR website: https://www.ampr.org/about/

"We don’t sell addresses; you might consider an AMPRNet allocation to be in the nature of an extended loan of IP space, which is, of course, subject to our Terms of Service."

And of course, from: https://www.ampr.org/terms-of-service/

> 5. What You may not do
>
> You may NOT sell, exchange, transfer, or otherwise obtain anything of value for the address(es). You are not permitted to use the address(es) for commercial purposes, nor in a manner which would be to the detriment of the AMPRNet or to Amateur Radio.
>
> 6. What You are agreeing to
>
> All address(es) licensed to You remain the sole and exclusive property of ARDC. You do not obtain any rights, title, or interest in the address(es) nor in the AMPRNet.
>
> You may not assign any monetary value to the addresses.
...
> 8. Definitions
>
> “Amateur”, “ham”, “operator”, means a person or group licensed under the terms of the Amateur Radio Service as defined by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) as implemented by their country’s government, e.g., in the USA, under 47CFR97.
>
> “AMPRNet” means the network 44/8; that is, all Internet IP addresses from 44.0.0.0 through 44.255.255.255.

And also from: http://wiki.ampr.org/wiki/Main_Page

> Since its allocation to Amateur Radio in the mid-1980's, Internet network 44 (44.0.0.0/8), known as the AMPRNet™,
...
> • This page was last edited on 5 April 2014, at 04:32.

They certainly seem to be claiming to have ownership of something not assigned to them, and in conflict with their own stated TOS.

What seems additionally strange is that according to the addressing agreement from 1986, according to wikipedia, "The allocation plan agreed in late-1986 mandated 44.0/9 (~8 million addresses) for use within the United States, under Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations;[6] and mandated 44.128/9 (~8 million addresses) for the Rest-of-World deployment, outside of FCC regulations.[6]"
Re: 44/8 [ In reply to ]
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
Re: 44/8 [ In reply to ]
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Randy Bush" <randy@psg.com>

> 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-author procmail? :-)

Cheers,
-- jra

--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
Re: 44/8 [ In reply to ]
On 2019-07-23 10:43 AM, William Herrin wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 7:32 AM Naslund, Steve <SNaslund@medline.com
> <mailto:SNaslund@medline.com>> 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. and is well known to
> Hams worldwide.
>
> You don't have to look very far. Just ask any ham.

The Internet, and amateur radio, both transcend the US.
Re: 44/8 [ In reply to ]
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
to frame my comments below. I was GM of the IANA in the early 2000's, I
held a tech license from 1994 through 2004 (I gave it up because life
changed, and I no longer had time; but I still have all my toys, err, I
mean, gear); and I have known two of the ARDC board members and one of
the advisors listed at https://www.ampr.org/amprnet/ for over fifteen
years. I consider them all friends, and trust their judgement
explicitly. One of them I've known for over 20 years, and consider a
close and very dear friend.

There have been a number of points over the past 30 years where anyone
who genuinely cared about this space could have used any number of
mechanisms to raise concerns over how it's been managed, and by whom. I
cannot help but think that some of this current sound and fury is an
excuse to express righteous indignation for its own sake. The folks
involved with ARDC have been caring for the space for a long time. From
my perspective, seeing the writing on the wall regarding the upcoming
friction around IPv4 space as an asset with monetary value increasing
exponentially, they took quite reasonable steps to create a legal
framework to ensure that their ability to continue managing the space
would be protected. Some of you may remember that other groups, like the
IETF, were taking similar steps before during and after that same time
frame. Sure, you can complain about what was done, how it was done,
etc.; but where were you then? Are you sure that at least part of your
anger isn't due to the fact that all of these things have happened over
the last 20 years, and you had no idea they were happening?

So let's talk a little about what "stewardship" means. Many folks have
complained about how ARDC has not done a good job of $X function that
stewards of the space should perform. Do you think having some money in
the bank will help contribute to their ability to do that? Has anyone
looked at how much of the space is actually being used now, and what
percentage reduction in available space carving out a /10 actually
represents? And nowadays when IPv6 is readily available essentially "for
free," how much is the amateur community actually being affected by this?

And with all due respect to Jon (and I mean that sincerely), what did
it/does it really mean that "Jon gave $PERSON the space for $REASON" 30
years later? Jon was a brilliant guy, but from what I've been told would
also be one of the first to admit when he made a mistake. One of which,
and one that he actively campaigned to fix, was the idea of classful
address space to start with, and particularly the idea that it was OK to
hand out massive chunks of it to anyone who asked. As a former ham I
definitely appreciate the concept 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 repurposed already, is taking another look at 44/8
really that far out of line?

Now all that said, if any of my friends had asked me how I thought news
of this sale should have been handled, I would have told them that this
reaction that we're seeing now is 100% predictable, and while it could
never be eliminated entirely it could be limited in scope and ferocity
by getting ahead of the message. At minimum when the transfer occurred.
But that doesn't change anything about my opinion that the sale itself
was totally reasonable, done by reasonable people, and in keeping with
the concept of being good stewards of the space.

hope this helps,

Doug
Re: 44/8 [ In reply to ]
Shall we change the subject to 44/9?

Yes +1 Joe and Owen. HamWAN.org is a fantastic example. There are others in
Miami and BC. Pnwdigital.net trunks MotoTrbo DMR repeaters over HamWan.

44net is a wonderful resource. Thank you Brian Kantor and John Hayes and
all the other AMPR volunteers.

Dylan Ambauen
KI7SBI


On Wed, Jul 24, 2019, 07:19 Joe Hamelin <joe@nethead.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:46 PM Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> 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 Seattle area multi-megabit ham network on 44/8
> space.
> --
> Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, +1 (360) 474-7474
>
>
Re: 44/8 [ In reply to ]
> On Jul 26, 2019, at 21:59 , Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us> 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 to frame my comments below. I was GM of the IANA in the early 2000's, I held a tech license from 1994 through 2004 (I gave it up because life changed, and I no longer had time; but I still have all my toys, err, I mean, gear); and I have known two of the ARDC board members and one of the advisors listed at https://www.ampr.org/amprnet/ <https://www.ampr.org/amprnet/> for over fifteen years. I consider them all friends, and trust their judgement explicitly. One of them I've known for over 20 years, and consider a close and very dear friend.
>
> There have been a number of points over the past 30 years where anyone who genuinely cared about this space could have used any number of mechanisms to raise concerns over how it's been managed, and by whom. I cannot help but think that some of this current sound and fury is an excuse to express righteous indignation for its own sake. The folks involved with ARDC have been caring for the space for a long time. From my perspective, seeing the writing on the wall regarding the upcoming friction around IPv4 space as an asset with monetary value increasing exponentially, they took quite reasonable steps to create a legal framework to ensure that their ability to continue managing the space would be protected. Some of you may remember that other groups, like the IETF, were taking similar steps before during and after that same time frame. Sure, you can complain about what was done, how it was done, etc.; but where were you then? Are you sure that at least part of your anger isn't due to the fact that all of these things have happened over the last 20 years, and you had no idea they were happening?
>

Certainly part of my anger is that I did not know some of them were happening.

However, most of my anger is around the fact that:
1. It never in a million years would have occurred to me that these people who I also consider friends and also trust explicitly
would take this particular action without significant prior (and much wider) consultation with the amateur radio community.

2. I believe this was done quietly and carefully orchestrated specifically to avoid any risk of successful backlash by the time
the community became aware of this particular intended action.

If you want to say shame on us for trusting these people and not noticing the severe corporate governance problems with ARDC until
they took this particular action, then I suppose that’s a fair comment.
> So let's talk a little about what "stewardship" means. Many folks have complained about how ARDC has not done a good job of $X function that stewards of the space should perform. Do you think having some money in the bank will help contribute to their ability to do that? Has anyone looked at how much of the space is actually being used now, and what percentage reduction in available space carving out a /10 actually represents? And nowadays when IPv6 is readily available essentially "for free," how much is the amateur community actually being affected by this?
>
All of those are good questions. I don’t have data to answer any of them other than that removing a /10 from a /8 is obviously a 25% reduction in the total space, so clearly a somewhat larger (though I don’t know by how much) reduction in available space since available space is some fraction of the remaining 1.5 /9s.
> And with all due respect to Jon (and I mean that sincerely), what did it/does it really mean that "Jon gave $PERSON the space for $REASON" 30 years later? Jon was a brilliant guy, but from what I've been told would also be one of the first to admit when he made a mistake. One of which, and one that he actively campaigned to fix, was the idea of classful address space to start with, and particularly the idea that it was OK to hand out massive chunks of it to anyone who asked. As a former ham I definitely appreciate the concept 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 repurposed already, is taking another look at 44/8 really that far out of line?
>
Taking another look is not at all out of line. Discarding 25% of it before letting the community in question on a broader scale take a look is absolutely very far out of line IMHO.
> Now all that said, if any of my friends had asked me how I thought news of this sale should have been handled, I would have told them that this reaction that we're seeing now is 100% predictable, and while it could never be eliminated entirely it could be limited in scope and ferocity by getting ahead of the message. At minimum when the transfer occurred. But that doesn't change anything about my opinion that the sale itself was totally reasonable, done by reasonable people, and in keeping with the concept of being good stewards of the space.
>
In actual fact, had the ARDC board approached the broader amateur radio community with a plan to sell the space, it’s entirely likely that I would have lent my support to the plan. That does not change the fact that I feel it was beyond their mandate and out of line for them to take the action first and neither consult the community before nor after.

Owen
Re: 44/8 [ In reply to ]
On 8/27/19 11:52 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Jul 26, 2019, at 21:59 , Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us> wrote:

<snip>

>> and I have known two of the ARDC board members and one of
>> the advisors listed at https://www.ampr.org/amprnet/
>> <https://www.ampr.org/amprnet/> for over fifteen years. I consider them
>> all friends, and trust their judgement explicitly. One of them I've known
>> for over 20 years, and consider a close and very dear friend.
>>
>> There have been a number of points over the past 30 years where anyone
>> who genuinely cared about this space could have used any number of
>> mechanisms to raise concerns over how it's been managed, and by whom.

<snip>

I will say most people ignored them, as TBQH, nothing changes in amateur radio
until people die. ARDC finally allocated space, got reverse DNS working, and
basically did nothing else. It was a technical org doing nothing of any real
value.

I had brought up the issues of governance numerous times, and said it didn't
look right to have people on the board with conflicts, or even licensed
amateurs. There were other personnel issues brought up as well and no action
was taken. If was an org doing the bare minimums and we got what we needed
from it, so why rock the boat?

> However, most of my anger is around the fact that: 1. It never in a million
> years would have occurred to me that these people who I also consider
> friends and also trust explicitly would take this particular action without
> significant prior (and much wider) consultation with the amateur radio
> community.
>
> 2. I believe this was done quietly and carefully orchestrated specifically
> to avoid any risk of successful backlash by the time the community became
> aware of this particular intended action.

Bingo.

> If you want to say shame on us for trusting these people and not noticing
> the severe corporate governance problems with ARDC until they took this
> particular action, then I suppose that’s a fair comment.

Many know these 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 by
CAIDA? This use held back deployment of 44/8 for years by the amateur users.
Does it smell funny that the majority of the board members of ARDC were CAIDA
board members?

>> So let's talk a little about what "stewardship" means. Many folks have
>> complained about how ARDC has not done a good job of $X function that
>> stewards of the space should perform. Do you think having some money in
>> the bank will help contribute to their ability to do that? Has anyone
>> looked at how much of the space is actually being used now, and what
>> percentage reduction in available space carving out a /10 actually
>> represents? And nowadays when IPv6 is readily available essentially "for
>> free," how much is the amateur community actually being affected by this?
>>
>>
> All of those are good questions. I don’t have data to answer any of them
> other than that removing a /10 from a /8 is obviously a 25% reduction in
> the total space, so clearly a somewhat larger (though I don’t know by how
> much) reduction in available space since available space is some fraction
> of the remaining 1.5 /9s.

Based on the way this was handled we suspect it was part of an unsolicited
offer by the buyer.

If an organization decided to sell off 1/4 of it's assets and start a
charitable giving process, the first thing done would be define the charitable
giving areas and process. Get your house in order, build up a board full of
talented people aligned with this new mission, and then effect the sale, no?

Considering ARDC is only giving to IRS approved 501c3 organizations, the sale
of the part of the space dedicated to non-US use (44.128.0.0/9) doesn't seem
right. Seems like if you're going to sell space not for use in the US, you
should have a plan to benefit those who it was taken from, no?

The first inkling of any of this was reverse DNS for 44/8 users was broken.
Mail was rejected, and people started to ask questions. There was no
consultation of anyone with technical clue on this. Had there been, we could
have prevented a 5+ day outage.

I think we all get that '44.in-addr.arpa. NS $SERVERS' would need to move to
the next byte boundary in configuration. Sure, it's 192 new records that need
to be made at ARIN, and even if they can't script it, it's an hour or two of
typing in the ARIN portal.

Based on the absolute secrecy this was done with and the lack of process or
thinking that went into it, I have to think it was an unsolicited bid, and
likely negotiated by ARDC personal lacking real-world business savvy.

>> And with all due respect to Jon (and I mean that sincerely), what did
>> it/does it really mean that "Jon gave $PERSON the space for $REASON" 30
>> years later? Jon was a brilliant guy, but from what I've been told would
>> also be one of the first to admit when he made a mistake. One of which,
>> and one that he actively campaigned to fix, was the idea of classful
>> address space to start with, and particularly the idea that it was OK to
>> hand out massive chunks of it to anyone who asked. As a former ham I
>> definitely appreciate the concept 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 repurposed already, is taking another look at 44/8
>> really that far out of line?
>>
> Taking another look is not at all out of line. Discarding 25% of it before
> letting the community in question on a broader scale take a look is
> absolutely very far out of line IMHO.

While I never knew Jon personally, I can't think he would have expected the
value of IPv4 space either. I can only think his allocation policies would
have been much more different.

<snip>

> In actual fact, had the ARDC board approached the broader amateur radio
> community with a plan to sell the space, it’s entirely likely that I would
> have lent my support to the plan. That does not change the fact that I feel
> it was beyond their mandate and out of line for them to take the action
> first and neither consult the community before nor after.

This has been my position all along. A discussion should have been had.
There was no pressing reason it had to be done right now.

Based on my personal discussion with Brian Kantor in 2014, he was 100% against
selling, or even leasing it as he stated ARDC merely was the custodian of the
space for amateur use. I can't think what changed, other than his employment
situation.

"They drove a dump-truck full of money up to my house, I'm not made of stone!"
-- Herschel Krustofsky

--
Bryan Fields

727-409-1194 - Voice
http://bryanfields.net
Re: 44/8 [ In reply to ]
> On Aug 27, 2019, at 23:50 , Bryan Fields <Bryan@bryanfields.net> wrote:
>
> On 8/27/19 11:52 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> On Jul 26, 2019, at 21:59 , Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> and I have known two of the ARDC board members and one of
>>> the advisors listed at https://www.ampr.org/amprnet/
>>> <https://www.ampr.org/amprnet/> for over fifteen years. I consider them
>>> all friends, and trust their judgement explicitly. One of them I've known
>>> for over 20 years, and consider a close and very dear friend.
>>>
>>> There have been a number of points over the past 30 years where anyone
>>> who genuinely cared about this space could have used any number of
>>> mechanisms to raise concerns over how it's been managed, and by whom.
>
> <snip>
>
> I will say most people ignored them, as TBQH, nothing changes in amateur radio
> until people die. ARDC finally allocated space, got reverse DNS working, and
> basically did nothing else. It was a technical org doing nothing of any real
> value.
>
> I had brought up the issues of governance numerous times, and said it didn't
> look right to have people on the board with conflicts, or even licensed
> amateurs.

I confess I never saw any of the questions about governance prior to the announcement
of the sale. If I had, I might have been spurred to look closer at least.

> There were other personnel issues brought up as well and no action
> was taken. If was an org doing the bare minimums and we got what we needed
> from it, so why rock the boat?

Well, there’s also the fact that the people involved in the org that I was aware of were
people that I trusted and would not have expected to take radical action absent some
outreach and consent of the community.

>> However, most of my anger is around the fact that: 1. It never in a million
>> years would have occurred to me that these people who I also consider
>> friends and also trust explicitly would take this particular action without
>> significant prior (and much wider) consultation with the amateur radio
>> community.
>>
>> 2. I believe this was done quietly and carefully orchestrated specifically
>> to avoid any risk of successful backlash by the time the community became
>> aware of this particular intended action.
>
> Bingo.
>
>> If you want to say shame on us for trusting these people and not noticing
>> the severe corporate governance problems with ARDC until they took this
>> particular action, then I suppose that’s a fair comment.
>
> Many know these 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?

An acquaintance is different from a trusted colleague and friend. While I don’t
have particularly close relationships with the parties involved, I did consider them
trusted colleagues and friends.

This doesn’t cloud my judgment about calling this action what it was, but it did
cloud my judgment 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 when it comes to expectations of how people will act.

> Does it pass the smell test that 44/8 was used, with no benefit to ARDC by
> CAIDA? This use held back deployment of 44/8 for years by the amateur users.
> Does it smell funny that the majority of the board members of ARDC were CAIDA
> board members?

It does pass the smell test, actually, when I understand the manner in which it was
“used”.

CAIDA is not some evil spammer researching ways to infiltrate more networks or
hide more snowshoeing. They are a public benefit research organization that has
provided a lot of valuable information to the internet over the years.

Their “use” of 44/8 was limited to a passive feed of otherwise unroutable packets
destined for unregistered addresses within 44/8. Since they were adjacent to
the router where this was occurring. I’m not sure how or why you claim that
this held back deployment for years. You’ll need to provide more information
and/or evidence to support that claim. At the moment, as I understand things,
that claim doesn’t pass the smell test.

>>> So let's talk a little about what "stewardship" means. Many folks have
>>> complained about how ARDC has not done a good job of $X function that
>>> stewards of the space should perform. Do you think having some money in
>>> the bank will help contribute to their ability to do that? Has anyone
>>> looked at how much of the space is actually being used now, and what
>>> percentage reduction in available space carving out a /10 actually
>>> represents? And nowadays when IPv6 is readily available essentially "for
>>> free," how much is the amateur community actually being affected by this?
>>>
>>>
>> All of those are good questions. I don’t have data to answer any of them
>> other than that removing a /10 from a /8 is obviously a 25% reduction in
>> the total space, so clearly a somewhat larger (though I don’t know by how
>> much) reduction in available space since available space is some fraction
>> of the remaining 1.5 /9s.
>
> Based on the way this was handled we suspect it was part of an unsolicited
> offer by the buyer.

I have no doubt that Amazon (and likely a broker acting on behalf of Amazon)
probably approached the ARDC board to initiate the sale, but it’s pretty clear
that ARDC took multiple deliberate steps over years that I suspect preceded
any such approach that were clearly aimed at making this possible.

> If an organization decided to sell off 1/4 of it's assets and start a
> charitable giving process, the first thing done would be define the charitable
> giving areas and process. Get your house in order, build up a board full of
> talented people aligned with this new mission, and then effect the sale, no?
>
> Considering ARDC is only giving to IRS approved 501c3 organizations, the sale
> of the part of the space dedicated to non-US use (44.128.0.0/9) doesn't seem
> right. Seems like if you're going to sell space not for use in the US, you
> should have a plan to benefit those who it was taken from, no?
>
> The first inkling of any of this was reverse DNS for 44/8 users was broken.
> Mail was rejected, and people started to ask questions. There was no
> consultation of anyone with technical clue on this. Had there been, we could
> have prevented a 5+ day outage.
>
> I think we all get that '44.in-addr.arpa. NS $SERVERS' would need to move to
> the next byte boundary in configuration. Sure, it's 192 new records that need
> to be made at ARIN, and even if they can't script it, it's an hour or two of
> typing in the ARIN portal.

I would have expected at least one ARDC board member in particular to have
significantly more DNS clue than the average DNS administrator.

> Based on the absolute secrecy this was done with and the lack of process or
> thinking that went into it, I have to think it was an unsolicited bid, and
> likely negotiated by ARDC personal lacking real-world business savvy.

That would not surprise me.

>>> And with all due respect to Jon (and I mean that sincerely), what did
>>> it/does it really mean that "Jon gave $PERSON the space for $REASON" 30
>>> years later? Jon was a brilliant guy, but from what I've been told would
>>> also be one of the first to admit when he made a mistake. One of which,
>>> and one that he actively campaigned to fix, was the idea of classful
>>> address space to start with, and particularly the idea that it was OK to
>>> hand out massive chunks of it to anyone who asked. As a former ham I
>>> definitely appreciate the concept 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 repurposed already, is taking another look at 44/8
>>> really that far out of line?
>>>
>> Taking another look is not at all out of line. Discarding 25% of it before
>> letting the community in question on a broader scale take a look is
>> absolutely very far out of line IMHO.
>
> While I never knew Jon personally, I can't think he would have expected the
> value of IPv4 space either. I can only think his allocation policies would
> have been much more different.

I never actually met Jon personally. However, what I know from other people’s
accounts and from reading various documents written by him in the early days
of the internet, I think that anyone approaching him with the idea of IPv4
addresses having monetary value would have been viewed as a strange
attempt at dark humor.

> <snip>
>
>> In actual fact, had the ARDC board approached the broader amateur radio
>> community with a plan to sell the space, it’s entirely likely that I would
>> have lent my support to the plan. That does not change the fact that I feel
>> it was beyond their mandate and out of line for them to take the action
>> first and neither consult the community before nor after.
>
> This has been my position all along. A discussion should have been had.
> There was no pressing reason it had to be done right now.

Other than the buyer’s fear that they might not get everything they wanted. Likely
this resulted in the buyer insisting on secrecy and applying pressure to close the
transaction before any risk of publicity.

> Based on my personal discussion with Brian Kantor in 2014, he was 100% against
> selling, or even leasing it as he stated ARDC merely was the custodian of the
> space for amateur use. I can't think what changed, other than his employment
> situation.
>
> "They drove a dump-truck full of money up to my house, I'm not made of stone!"
> -- Herschel Krustofsky

Sounds about right.

Unfortunately, I don’t think the amateur radio community is strong enough to put
meaningful pressure on Amazon. I’m not 100% sure I wouldn’t have supported
the action in a community consultation, either. I resent that this was done without
consultation, I definitely would have insisted on better governance structure for
ARDC prior to approving such consultation. At this point, I think we have lost.
I think the best we can do is try to adapt the governance structure of ARDC to
empower the Amateur Radio community and ensure that there isn’t a repeat of
this.

Owen
Re: 44/8 [ In reply to ]
On 8/27/19 8:52 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>
>> On Jul 26, 2019, at 21:59 , Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us
>> <mailto:dougb@dougbarton.us>> 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 to frame my comments below. I was GM of the IANA in the
>> early 2000's, I held a tech license from 1994 through 2004 (I gave it
>> up because life changed, and I no longer had time; but I still have
>> all my toys, err, I mean, gear); and I have known two of the ARDC
>> board members and one of the advisors listed at
>> https://www.ampr.org/amprnet/ for over fifteen years. I consider them
>> all friends, and trust their judgement explicitly. One of them I've
>> known for over 20 years, and consider a close and very dear friend.
>>
>> There have been a number of points over the past 30 years where anyone
>> who genuinely cared about this space could have used any number of
>> mechanisms to raise concerns over how it's been managed, and by whom.
>> I cannot help but think that some of this current sound and fury is an
>> excuse to express righteous indignation for its own sake. The folks
>> involved with ARDC have been caring for the space for a long time.
>> From my perspective, seeing the writing on the wall regarding the
>> upcoming friction around IPv4 space as an asset with monetary value
>> increasing exponentially, they took quite reasonable steps to create a
>> legal framework to ensure that their ability to continue managing the
>> space would be protected. Some of you may remember that other groups,
>> like the IETF, were taking similar steps before during and after that
>> same time frame. Sure, you can complain about what was done, how it
>> was done, etc.; but where were you then? Are you sure that at least
>> part of your anger isn't due to the fact that all of these things have
>> happened over the last 20 years, and you had no idea they were happening?
>>
>
> Certainly part of my anger is that I did not know some of them were
> happening.

Fair enough.

> However, most of my anger is around the fact that:
> 1.It never in a million years would have occurred to me that these
> people who I also consider friends and also trust explicitly
> would take this particular action without significant prior (and much
> wider) consultation with the amateur radio community.
>
> 2.I believe this was done quietly and carefully orchestrated
> specifically to avoid any risk of successful backlash by the time
> the community became aware of this particular intended action.

I have actually been in this exact same position, of knowing that a
thing is the right thing to do, but also knowing that doing it would
create a poop-storm. I don't know if your analysis is right or not, but
if I had been in their shoes I probably would have done the same thing.

> If you want to say shame on us for trusting these people and not
> noticing the severe corporate governance problems with ARDC until
> they took this particular action, then I suppose that’s a fair comment.

No, I am not attempting to shame anyone (although I admit my message was
a bit testy). My point is simply that all of this after-the-fact
griping, in the absence of any proven harm, is probably not as much
about the thing as it is about self-culpability in what lead up to the
thing. But as humans it's hard to direct that anger towards ourselves,
so it gets directed outwardly. So, no shame, as it's a very human
reaction. But a little more self-awareness would not be out of place.

>> So let's talk a little about what "stewardship" means. Many folks have
>> complained about how ARDC has not done a good job of $X function that
>> stewards of the space should perform. Do you think having some money
>> in the bank will help contribute to their ability to do that? Has
>> anyone looked at how much of the space is actually being used now, and
>> what percentage reduction in available space carving out a /10
>> actually represents? And nowadays when IPv6 is readily available
>> essentially "for free," how much is the amateur community actually
>> being affected by this?
>>
> All of those are good questions. I don’t have data to answer any of them

So shouldn't actually looking at the space to determine if any real harm
was done be the next step?

Doug
Re: 44/8 [ In reply to ]
> On Aug 31, 2019, at 09:23 , Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us> wrote:
>
> On 8/27/19 8:52 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> On Jul 26, 2019, at 21:59 , Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us <mailto:dougb@dougbarton.us>> 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 to frame my comments below. I was GM of the IANA in the early 2000's, I held a tech license from 1994 through 2004 (I gave it up because life changed, and I no longer had time; but I still have all my toys, err, I mean, gear); and I have known two of the ARDC board members and one of the advisors listed at https://www.ampr.org/amprnet/ for over fifteen years. I consider them all friends, and trust their judgement explicitly. One of them I've known for over 20 years, and consider a close and very dear friend.
>>>
>>> There have been a number of points over the past 30 years where anyone who genuinely cared about this space could have used any number of mechanisms to raise concerns over how it's been managed, and by whom. I cannot help but think that some of this current sound and fury is an excuse to express righteous indignation for its own sake. The folks involved with ARDC have been caring for the space for a long time. From my perspective, seeing the writing on the wall regarding the upcoming friction around IPv4 space as an asset with monetary value increasing exponentially, they took quite reasonable steps to create a legal framework to ensure that their ability to continue managing the space would be protected. Some of you may remember that other groups, like the IETF, were taking similar steps before during and after that same time frame. Sure, you can complain about what was done, how it was done, etc.; but where were you then? Are you sure that at least part of your anger isn't due to the fact that all of these things have happened over the last 20 years, and you had no idea they were happening?
>>>
>> Certainly part of my anger is that I did not know some of them were happening.
>
> Fair enough.
>
>> However, most of my anger is around the fact that:
>> 1.It never in a million years would have occurred to me that these people who I also consider friends and also trust explicitly
>> would take this particular action without significant prior (and much wider) consultation with the amateur radio community.
>> 2.I believe this was done quietly and carefully orchestrated specifically to avoid any risk of successful backlash by the time
>> the community became aware of this particular intended action.
>
> I have actually been in this exact same position, of knowing that a thing is the right thing to do, but also knowing that doing it would create a poop-storm. I don't know if your analysis is right or not, but if I had been in their shoes I probably would have done the same thing.

Well, I suppose that’s a matter of perspective and personal conviction.

For me, It’s hard to defend a belief that an action is correct if I’m afraid that the community I’m a steward for will offer up significant opposition to the point that I want to take the action in secret behind the back of the community.

I’m not intending any insult, or judgment on your value system, but from my perspective, avoiding the community discussion of a plan and acting on it behind their backs is an act of cowardice, not an act of conviction.

>> If you want to say shame on us for trusting these people and not noticing the severe corporate governance problems with ARDC until
>> they took this particular action, then I suppose that’s a fair comment.
>
> No, I am not attempting to shame anyone (although I admit my message was a bit testy). My point is simply that all of this after-the-fact griping, in the absence of any proven harm, is probably not as much about the thing as it is about self-culpability in what lead up to the thing. But as humans it's hard to direct that anger towards ourselves, so it gets directed outwardly. So, no shame, as it's a very human reaction. But a little more self-awareness would not be out of place.

There is proven harm. There were active users of the address space sold that were (at the very least) forced to renumber.

>>> So let's talk a little about what "stewardship" means. Many folks have complained about how ARDC has not done a good job of $X function that stewards of the space should perform. Do you think having some money in the bank will help contribute to their ability to do that? Has anyone looked at how much of the space is actually being used now, and what percentage reduction in available space carving out a /10 actually represents? And nowadays when IPv6 is readily available essentially "for free," how much is the amateur community actually being affected by this?
>>>
>> All of those are good questions. I don’t have data to answer any of them
>
> So shouldn't actually looking at the space to determine if any real harm was done be the next step?

There were definitely allocations/assignments in the space sold.

I think that the next step should be finding a way to alter the ARDC governance and board to ensure that such an action is not possible in the future without significant community review prior to the action being taken.

ARDC must be reorganized to empower the Amateur Community.

Owen

1 2 3 4 5  View All