Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amateur radio digital communications 44.0.0.0/8 partial sell-off

mailman.nanog.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 102 posts

Re: Amateur radio digital communications 44.0.0.0/8 partial sell-off

#71

Post by londons_explore »

nullbyte wrote: post #26
icedchai wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is those public parks get used. 44.0.0.0/8 is mostly empty.

Even so, we're left with less space than we had before. To my knowledge the FCC is pretty liberal with dishing out public RF spectrum ranges to private entities, but they're much more conservative with turning over private RF ranges to the public. Every part of the RF spectrum that the public loses is unlikely to be reclaimed. We have less airspace, permanently.

The FCC is shortsighted for not making all spectrum be leased.

It should all be on 25 year leases, auctioned a few years in advance of expiry.

Re: Amateur radio digital communications 44.0.0.0/8 partial sell-off

#72

Post by londons_explore »

rohan1024 wrote: post #70
rexarex wrote: post #68

We were supposed to run out of space in the 90s, but NAT was a temporary bandaid that turned into the status quo. Not the original intent, and it’s used as a de facto firewall with really mixed results. I say, exhaust it and force people into IPv6 like we should all be on.

There's no incentive for migrating to ipv6 for corporations. I have said this previously NAT breaks the Internet [0]. Without setting an expiration date for ipv4 NAT is going to get dragged to 2050. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20253427

Ipv6 adoption is slowly creeping up, and if you were to put grandma's broadband on ipv6 only, she would still be able to use Facebook, Twitter, and all the other major big sites.

I'd say the day some ISP's stop provisioning ipv4 (especially for 'social networks only' plans) might be getting close.

Re: Amateur radio digital communications 44.0.0.0/8 partial sell-off

#73

Post by pmlnr »

tesseract wrote: post #63
nexuist wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The laws of ham radio are literally "you must not encrypt anything" Wait, really? Why is this the case?

To enable enforcement of amateurism.

Similarly why gopher is not encrypted:

https://gopher.floodgap.com/gopher/gw.lite?gopher://tilde.te...

Re: Amateur radio digital communications 44.0.0.0/8 partial sell-off

#74

Post by throwaway2048 »

jrockway wrote: post #61

I hate to be a downer, but nobody even knew about this space until it was mentioned here. I've been a ham for almost 10 years and this is the first I've heard of it. The Internet and ham radio don't mix. The rules of the modern Internet are "encrypt everything and trust nothing." The laws of ham radio are literally "you must not encrypt anything". It wasn't meant to be, unless you want to change the laws in every ITU…

You've never heard of it because the ARDC has been absolutely abysmal stewards of it, now they get a nice multi-megabuck payday for decades of negligence. Don't count on these "grants" ever actually materializing, count on huge paychecks for the board though.

Re: Amateur radio digital communications 44.0.0.0/8 partial sell-off

#75

Post by londons_explore »

wmf wrote: post #51
mbesto wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's my take - creating a marketplace where a sole actor has control over a scarce resource (IP addresses) is exactly why anti-trust exists. A true marketplace assumes there is competition. How do you have competition when the underlying resource (1) has a clearly understood finite number (2) is controlled by one entity and (3) can't be differentiated in any way (e.g. 10.0.0.0/8 has no differentiated intrinsic or e…

In what sense are IP addresses controlled by one entity? IANA isn't setting prices.

If IANA were profit-seeking, they would rent rather than allocate addresses, and force people to pay $10 per IP per year, and roll in the billions of dollars they'd collect.

Re: Amateur radio digital communications 44.0.0.0/8 partial sell-off

#76

Post by vwdhx »

rohan1024 wrote: post #70
rexarex wrote: post #68

We were supposed to run out of space in the 90s, but NAT was a temporary bandaid that turned into the status quo. Not the original intent, and it’s used as a de facto firewall with really mixed results. I say, exhaust it and force people into IPv6 like we should all be on.

There's no incentive for migrating to ipv6 for corporations. I have said this previously NAT breaks the Internet [0]. Without setting an expiration date for ipv4 NAT is going to get dragged to 2050. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20253427

Maybe NAT breaks the Internet of twenty years ago. But we've already worked around it. I'm using a computer which is behind a NAT which is behind a CG-NAT and everything works fine. Sure, people can't connect to me directly, but why would I want that to happen? If anything, that makes my computer more secure.

I know this sounds like trolling, but let's be pragmatic.

Re: Amateur radio digital communications 44.0.0.0/8 partial sell-off

#77

Post by nickodell »

jrockway wrote: post #61

I hate to be a downer, but nobody even knew about this space until it was mentioned here. I've been a ham for almost 10 years and this is the first I've heard of it. The Internet and ham radio don't mix. The rules of the modern Internet are "encrypt everything and trust nothing." The laws of ham radio are literally "you must not encrypt anything". It wasn't meant to be, unless you want to change the laws in every ITU…

>I hate to be a downer, but nobody even knew about this space until it was mentioned here.

Speak for yourself. :)

>The rules of the modern Internet are "encrypt everything and trust nothing." The laws of ham radio are literally "you must not encrypt anything". It wasn't meant to be, unless you want to change the laws in every ITU member state.

More to the point, the regulations around third-party communications [0] mean that this could never be routable from the public Internet.

And if 44/8 will never be routable, then what's the point of using public addresses? It could use private network addresses instead.

All the same, I find ARDC's response to be high-handed. They refuse to acknowledge that they are selling off what is essentially a public resource. They refuse to believe that others might not trust them to be a responsible steward of ~$50 million.

[0]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/97.115

Re: Amateur radio digital communications 44.0.0.0/8 partial sell-off

#78

Post by southerntofu »

Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #25

The money involved in IPv4 allocations - and name allocations too - really sickens me. It's a blemish on humanity and a testament to the limitless nature of human greed. IANA (and ICANN as a whole) is a corrupt, captured organization that I think represents the worst of the internet when it should have been the best of it. Removing price caps on .org, gold rushing outrageously priced gTLDs to anyone with the money (p…

> it's crap like this which makes me wonder if the humanity of future centuries will look back at our greed-powered society with disdain.

If there is any humanity left in the coming decades, they will for sure look down on us as monstrous greedy beasts killing each other for a little power. Because that's all that capitalism and private property brought humanity since their invention.

But it's far from sure there will still be anyone alive to resent us given the very likely collapse of capitalist civilization (and most of life on earth with it).

There's an excellent ecologist documentary specifically on this topic called End:Civ. You can find it in many good corners of the web/net for free :)

In the meantime, we'll keep working on decentralizing naming authorities of the Internet, such as with tor, cjdns, etc..

Re: Amateur radio digital communications 44.0.0.0/8 partial sell-off

#79

Post by tialaramex »

rohan1024 wrote: post #70
rexarex wrote: post #68

We were supposed to run out of space in the 90s, but NAT was a temporary bandaid that turned into the status quo. Not the original intent, and it’s used as a de facto firewall with really mixed results. I say, exhaust it and force people into IPv6 like we should all be on.

There's no incentive for migrating to ipv6 for corporations. I have said this previously NAT breaks the Internet [0]. Without setting an expiration date for ipv4 NAT is going to get dragged to 2050. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20253427

IPv6 significantly simplifies your internal numbering.

Inside a corporation you don't need to "dual stack" you can just go pure IPv6 wall-to-wall and now all your subnets are arbitrary size and have globally unique addresses. You use NAT64 at the edge to get to the parts of the world that are stuck on IPv4.

Several big organisations have done this, it's a big saving.

Re: Amateur radio digital communications 44.0.0.0/8 partial sell-off

#80

Post by jrockway »

nickodell wrote: post #77
jrockway wrote: post #61

I hate to be a downer, but nobody even knew about this space until it was mentioned here. I've been a ham for almost 10 years and this is the first I've heard of it. The Internet and ham radio don't mix. The rules of the modern Internet are "encrypt everything and trust nothing." The laws of ham radio are literally "you must not encrypt anything". It wasn't meant to be, unless you want to change the laws in every ITU…

>I hate to be a downer, but nobody even knew about this space until it was mentioned here. Speak for yourself. :) >The rules of the modern Internet are "encrypt everything and trust nothing." The laws of ham radio are literally "you must not encrypt anything". It wasn't meant to be, unless you want to change the laws in every ITU member state. More to the point, the regulations around third-party communications [0] m…

> They refuse to acknowledge that they are selling off what is essentially a public resource.

I think I'm OK with this. Someone decided to ask for a ton of free IP addresses when the Internet was a crazy thing nobody cared about. That person appointed a board of directors to manage the resource. The appointed board then decided "let's turn that valuable resource into money." That's just capitalism. Is it fair that someone buys stock that increases in value 100x? Is it fair that someone is born rich and you're born poor? Not really. But that's the way the world works.

If you want to post to a networking mailing list "I don't like the way the world works, it's unfair," I'm totally fine with that. But being mad about who owns what today because you weren't around to claim some land before the gold rush seems irrational to me. These folks got lucky. It appears that they are going to donate 100% of their luck to charity. It's all going to be okay, probably.

Post reply on HN