On 5/26/11 11:23 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On May 26, 2011, at 5:14 PM, Wil Schultz wrote:
Out of curiosity, is there an IPv6 stack for ham devices?
Well there's a loaded question.
...
I won't say that there aren't ham devices with an IP stack built in, but I
think we're talking about
On May 26, 2011, at 7:35 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Unfortunately, the FCC hasn't really allowed us to since it would be very
hard to produce useful bandwidth by today's standards within the bounds
of the spectrum we are allowed to use and the channel separations we
are allowed to use.
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 2:12 AM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote:
You just need to move up in frequency a bit. My slowest ham-band link runs at
12 Mbps and my fastest at over 100 Mbps.
Good reminder that I should renumber the IPv4 portion of that network to
somewhere in 44.0.0.0/8
Nope, mostly HF (under 30mhz) gear at 300baud. Yes, you read that right.
I've seen a couple shorter hops of fractional T1 on 900mhz or 9600baud AX.25
on 144mhz, but there just aren't enough links to use line of site
frequencies.
Push mad bits,
-Jack Carrozzo
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 10:34 AM,
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Jack Carrozzo j...@crepinc.com wrote:
Nope, mostly HF (under 30mhz) gear at 300baud. Yes, you read that right.
You are running IP on this? And I though 1200 bauds half duplex was slow.
Me personally? No, but I have used it. IP over 9600baud serial actually
isn't that bad for IRC when you're in the middle of the woods and all.
You want slow... read about winlink2000, the email/messaging system for hams
and emergency response. It's PSK on HF, meant to be reliable but if you get
On May 25, 2011, at 11:12 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
On May 26, 2011, at 7:35 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Unfortunately, the FCC hasn't really allowed us to since it would be very
hard to produce useful bandwidth by today's standards within the bounds
of the spectrum we are allowed to use
Used to run IP over AX.25 using KA9Q JNOS back in the day. HF at 300
baud simplex / half-duplex and VHF 144 Mhz at 1200 with similar
characteristics. I bought some 9600 baud gear at one point but never
got it all put together before moving on to the regular internet and
(somewhat unfortunately)
And I just want to point out that a full /8 (worth $188,911,452.16 at the
benchmark rate as set by Microsoft/NNI) is dedicated to AMPR... :-)
When I was at IANA, we (where by we I mean Leo Vegoda :-)) looked at trying
to reclaim this /8 around the same time we were recovering the /8 dedicated
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:54 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
The decentralized nature of administration of 44/8 made this somewhat
intractable. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out in the future
address markets.
I reckon it'd be about as hard to get back 44/8 as 11/8,
Yeah, so... the thing is there really are benefits to ham radio for
the community. I 100% believe in that. And yes, there are a lot of
neck beards but, honestly, look at some pictures from a NANOG meeting!
;)
I have been massively inactive in Amateur Radio for some time. I miss
it. However
geez
Since we are turning the clock backI launched my first AX.25 node in 1985
when I was living at Ft. Belvoir, VA. It was part of the 144 MHz eastlink
network that ran from Maine to Miami. Somewhere on a 5-1/2 floppy disk I have
an ASCII map of that network.
You really could hear the
I still have my TNC here on the shelf... not much use for pushing bits, but
still handy to decode SCADA on 900mhz ;-)
-Jack Carrozzo
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc)
marcus.sa...@verizon.com wrote:
geez
Since we are turning the clock backI launched my first
On May 26, 2011 3:08 PM, Jaime Magiera ja...@sensoryresearch.net wrote:
out of the woodwork
from our cold dead hands.
/out of the woodwork
kd8mzn
I haven't read the entire thread, but since everyone with a call sign is
checking in...
There are some similarities between bands and
On May 26, 2011, at 4:50 PM, Wil Schultz wrote:
There are some similarities between bands and ipv4 exhaustion, sure... One
major difference is that those using ipv4 have the option of using ipv6,
Out of curiosity, is there an IPv6 stack for ham devices?
Regards,
-drc
On May 26, 2011 7:54 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
On May 26, 2011, at 4:50 PM, Wil Schultz wrote:
There are some similarities between bands and ipv4 exhaustion, sure...
One
major difference is that those using ipv4 have the option of using ipv6,
Out of curiosity, is there
On May 26, 2011, at 5:14 PM, Wil Schultz wrote:
Out of curiosity, is there an IPv6 stack for ham devices?
Well there's a loaded question.
...
I won't say that there aren't ham devices with an IP stack built in, but I
think we're talking about different layers here.
Sorry, poorly worded.
Sorry, poorly worded. What I was wondering is there is an equivalent of
KA9Q for IPv6. I believe one of the comments we got back when we were
trying to reclaim 44/8 was that folks couldn't migrate to IPv6 because
no software was available...
We've come a little way since NOS. Linux has
On Thu, May 26, 2011, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
Sorry, poorly worded. What I was wondering is there is an equivalent of
KA9Q for IPv6. I believe one of the comments we got back when we were
trying to reclaim 44/8 was that folks couldn't migrate to IPv6 because
no software was available...
On May 26, 2011, at 5:41 PM, Carl Rosevear wrote:
Yeah, so... the thing is there really are benefits to ham radio for
the community. I 100% believe in that. And yes, there are a lot of
neck beards but, honestly, look at some pictures from a NANOG meeting!
;)
Indeed, there is a club
--- wavetos...@googlemail.com wrote:
So we should CONDONE such borrowing and recommend a couple of /8s to
use in North America. Perhaps one could be DOD for those operators
Yes, so it turns IPv4 into such a big steaming pile that every one goes to IPv6
On May 24, 2011, at 8:22 PM, Jeremy wrote:
As long as necessary precautions are taken (route filters, tunnels, VRF's)
shouldn't this be technically feasible without any negative ramifications?
Any? Debatable. Doing stuff like this has costs, but I suspect the folks at
Rogers aren't idiots and
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 1:25 AM, Michael Dillon
wavetos...@googlemail.com wrote:
So we should CONDONE such borrowing and recommend a couple of /8s to
use in North America. Perhaps one could be DOD for those operators
that do not carry any DOD traffic and one could be that /8 from
Softbank
From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi@nanog.org Wed May 25 13:44:21
2011
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 14:43:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Rogers Canada using 7.0.0.0/8 for internal address space
From: Christopher Pilkington c...@0x1.net
To: Michael Dillon wavetos...@googlemail.com
Cc: NANOG nanog
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 02:43:24PM -0400, Christopher Pilkington wrote:
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 1:25 AM, Michael Dillon
wavetos...@googlemail.com wrote:
So we should CONDONE such borrowing and recommend a couple of /8s to
use in North America. Perhaps one could be DOD for those operators
Does it make sense that ham radio operators have
routable IP address space any longer?
Yes. Keep your mitts off 44!
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 4:24 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
NOTE WELL - Just because -you- (for values of you) see no value in
space assigned, does NOT give you the right to hijack said space
for your own purposes. Nor does it look well for you to advocate
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Christopher Pilkington c...@0x1.net wrote:
Indeed, arbitrary is arbitrary, be it ham radio operators or the DoD.
I was trolling hams on the list there, my apologies. FWIW, my box
44.68.16.20 hasn't been up in well over a decade. Would have been
nice if that
On May 25, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Christopher Pilkington wrote:
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 1:25 AM, Michael Dillon
wavetos...@googlemail.com wrote:
So we should CONDONE such borrowing and recommend a couple of /8s to
use in North America. Perhaps one could be DOD for those operators
that do not
On May 25, 2011, at 2:23 PM, Christopher Pilkington wrote:
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 4:24 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
NOTE WELL - Just because -you- (for values of you) see no value in
space assigned, does NOT give you the right to hijack said space
for your
On 5/23/2011 10:34 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Diluted IPv4 is one thing. Hijacking space allocated to another entity
is another. As long as they keep it contained within their network,
it's pretty much up to them to break their own environment however
they see fit, but, if they start leaking
-Original Message-
From: Byron L. Hicks [mailto:by...@byronhicks.com]
I ran into this issue with a service provider that wanted to set up
point of sale terminals on our campus. They were using DoD address
space in their inside network, and they ordered ISDN connectivity from
our
On 5/24/2011 9:13 AM, Leigh Porter wrote:
So you said NO, and what did they do about it ?
It forced them to put in their own ISDN router, and they put static
routes on the point of sale terminals that pointed the borrowed IP
space to the ISDN router. There was no way I was going to put this in
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Mark Farina markfarin...@gmail.com wrote:
As of April 27th I have started to receive dhcp broadcast requests
originating from the 7.0.0.0/8 network. Based on MAC addresses, it
seems that this is communication between the Rogers border/node
hardware (MAC
On May 24, 2011, at 7:56 AM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Mark Farina markfarin...@gmail.com wrote:
As of April 27th I have started to receive dhcp broadcast requests
originating from the 7.0.0.0/8 network. Based on MAC addresses, it
seems that this is communication
On Tue, 24 May 2011 08:42:45 -0700
Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
It's been a while since we fought a war with canada.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War
Should we start locking up our pigs?
Then there was the War of 1812 where both side claimed to have won thus
starting the age of
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Paul Graydon p...@paulgraydon.co.uk wrote:
On 5/24/2011 4:17 AM, Byron L. Hicks wrote:
On 5/24/2011 9:13 AM, Leigh Porter wrote:
So you said NO, and what did they do about it ?
It forced them to put in their own ISDN router, and they put static
routes on
On 5/24/11 10:07 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
There is no fixing the lack of IPv4, just more band-aids. IPv4 has
been scarce for the last 10 years that i have been in this industry.
I remember one of my first jobs was assigning IP addresses to
customers at an ISP and people on the other end of
Is the DoD releasing this range to Rogers? Or has Rogers squatted on
this space due to exhaustion of their 10/8 use? We've seen other
Squatting resources from an organization that can deploy F/A-18
Hornets, F/A-22 Raptors, Predator drones or Navy SEALs is probably bad
to your health.
It's
On Tue, 24 May 2011 10:59:18 PDT, Owen DeLong said:
Squatting resources from an organization that can deploy F/A-18
Hornets, F/A-22 Raptors, Predator drones or Navy SEALs is probably bad
to your health.
I tend to doubt it. I'm pretty sure the DoD has the phone number to
the FBI.
Yes,
To: Nanog
Subject: Re: Rogers Canada using 7.0.0.0/8 for internal address space
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Mark Farina markfarin...@gmail.com
wrote:
As of April 27th I have started to receive dhcp broadcast requests
originating from the 7.0.0.0/8 network. Based on MAC addresses, it
seems
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 4:34 PM, vinny_abe...@dell.com wrote:
I think those within the organization that deploy those vehicles or are Navy
SEALs might sit at different lunch tables than the guys worried about IP
address collisions. ;-)
The F/A-18 Hornets, F/A-22 Raptors are well, and good,
- Original Message -
From: Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 4:34 PM, vinny_abe...@dell.com wrote:
I think those within the organization that deploy those vehicles or
are Navy SEALs might sit at different lunch tables than the guys worried
about IP address
On May 24, 2011, at 9:29 06PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 4:34 PM, vinny_abe...@dell.com wrote:
I think those within the organization that deploy those vehicles or
are Navy SEALs might sit at different lunch
Please excuse my ignorance on this and note that I am not condoning the
hijacking of IP address space.
As long as necessary precautions are taken (route filters, tunnels, VRF's)
shouldn't this be technically feasible without any negative ramifications?
These 7-NET address seem to be assigned to
From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 00:22:36 -0400
On Mon, 23 May 2011 21:14:02 PDT, Cameron Byrne said:
Now, the onus is on the DoD to make its content available over unique
IPv6 space so that the Roger's customers can get to it using the
6to4-PMT solution. There is
On Tue, 24 May 2011 22:22:20 CDT, Jeremy said:
As long as necessary precautions are taken (route filters, tunnels, VRF's)
shouldn't this be technically feasible without any negative ramifications?
The types of network designers who are able to cover *every single* little
detail needed to make
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 8:45 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2011 22:22:20 CDT, Jeremy said:
As long as necessary precautions are taken (route filters, tunnels, VRF's)
shouldn't this be technically feasible without any negative ramifications?
The types of network designers
On 25 May 2011 04:22, Jeremy jba...@gmail.com wrote:
Please excuse my ignorance on this and note that I am not condoning the
hijacking of IP address space.
As long as necessary precautions are taken (route filters, tunnels, VRF's)
shouldn't this be technically feasible without any negative
As of April 27th I have started to receive dhcp broadcast requests
originating from the 7.0.0.0/8 network. Based on MAC addresses, it
seems that this is communication between the Rogers border/node
hardware (MAC assigned to Cisco) and my Motorola cable modem.
Is the DoD releasing this range to
On May 23, 2011, at 8:28 AM, Mark Farina wrote:
Is the DoD releasing this range to Rogers?
Unlikely, although it might be an interesting case of testing ARIN's transfer
policy if it was the case :-).
Or has Rogers squatted on this space due to exhaustion of their 10/8 use?
Probably. I've
Sent from my iPad
On May 23, 2011, at 11:32, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
On May 23, 2011, at 8:28 AM, Mark Farina wrote:
Is the DoD releasing this range to Rogers?
Unlikely, although it might be an interesting case of testing ARIN's transfer
policy if it was the case :-).
On May 23, 2011, at 10:36 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Sent from my iPad
On May 23, 2011, at 11:32, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
On May 23, 2011, at 8:28 AM, Mark Farina wrote:
Is the DoD releasing this range to Rogers?
Unlikely, although it might be an interesting case of
In message b2100b46-6d93-46a2-8746-5cfb8be88...@bogus.com, Joel Jaeggli write
s:
On May 23, 2011, at 10:36 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
=20
=20
Sent from my iPad
=20
On May 23, 2011, at 11:32, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
=20
On May 23, 2011, at 8:28 AM, Mark Farina wrote:
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message b2100b46-6d93-46a2-8746-5cfb8be88...@bogus.com, Joel Jaeggli
write
s:
On May 23, 2011, at 10:36 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
=20
=20
Sent from my iPad
=20
On May 23, 2011, at 11:32, David Conrad
This is the business reality of the IPv4-scarce era. Diluted IPv4 is
not new to many places and will become common in many more places.
Furthermore, it is a calculated business risk. IPv4 services
will/have become the 2nd class (NAT444...) services as IPv6 ascends
to first class status
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
I don't think they have to hijack space from DoD. I think there are a
number of other options available to them. They might cost more, but,
they also come with somewhat lower risks
the good thing is 7 exists on networks that
On May 24, 2011, at 12:02 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
I don't think they have to hijack space from DoD. I think there are a
number of other options available to them. They might cost more, but,
they also come with
Owen,
On May 23, 2011, at 8:34 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I think there are a number of other options available to them.
Out of curiosity, what would these options be?
Regards,
-drc
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote:
On May 24, 2011, at 12:02 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
I don't think they have to hijack space from DoD. I think there are a
number of other
On Mon, 23 May 2011 21:14:02 PDT, Cameron Byrne said:
Now, the onus is on the DoD to make its content available over unique
IPv6 space so that the Roger's customers can get to it using the
6to4-PMT solution. There is always a solution.
Which they should be ready to do already, since didn't
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 9:22 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2011 21:14:02 PDT, Cameron Byrne said:
Now, the onus is on the DoD to make its content available over unique
IPv6 space so that the Roger's customers can get to it using the
6to4-PMT solution. There is always a
In message BANLkTi=i6nssvj-ah2nbwpiz_jyhlc3...@mail.gmail.com, Cameron Byrne
writes:
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wro=
te:
On May 24, 2011, at 12:02 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
In message 17520.1306210956@localhost, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu writes:
On Mon, 23 May 2011 21:14:02 PDT, Cameron Byrne said:
Now, the onus is on the DoD to make its content available over unique
IPv6 space so that the Roger's customers can get to it using the
6to4-PMT solution. There is
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:09 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote:
If they do, any Rogers customer who wants to talk to it is screwed. Whether
they have a 7 addy or not, Rogers' routers will not let the packet leave
Rogers' borders.
That could depend on whether Rogers' border
On May 24, 2011, at 12:36 AM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:09 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net
wrote:
If they do, any Rogers customer who wants to talk to it is screwed. Whether
they have a 7 addy or not, Rogers' routers will not let the packet leave
Rogers'
On May 23, 2011 9:37 PM, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:09 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net
wrote:
If they do, any Rogers customer who wants to talk to it is screwed.
Whether they have a 7 addy or not, Rogers' routers will not let the packet
leave
Which they should be ready to do already, since didn't the US Govt.
mandate IPv6 support sometime last century? ;)
Yeah, it runs over GOSIP.
R's,
John
On May 23, 2011, at 9:09 PM, David Conrad wrote:
Owen,
On May 23, 2011, at 8:34 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I think there are a number of other options available to them.
Out of curiosity, what would these options be?
As previously mentioned:
1. Obtain RIR space
2.
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:42 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote:
However, many networks take active steps to assure that external parties
cannot disrupt their internal network. Anyone on this list with
And many networks have implemented BCP38 and appropriate prefix
filters + as
70 matches
Mail list logo
