[Berlin-wireless] 104/8 an ARIN vergeben

[Benjamin Freitag]

Am 03.02.2011 15:53, schrieb Christian Seitz:
> > Hallo,
> >
> > falls es jemand noch nicht mitbekommen hat: Heute nachmittag wurde im
> > Rahmen der Vergabe der letzten 5 IPv4 /8-Bloecke auch der Block 104/8
> > vergeben und zwar an das ARIN. 104/8 wird ja beim Berliner Freifunk
> > genutzt. Sobald Netzbereiche aus 104/8 offiziell vergeben kann,
> > bedeutet das Erreichbarkeitsprobleme aus dem Freifunknetz zu diesen
> > Zielen.
> >
> >
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.txt
> >
> > Gruss, Chris
Vielleicht startet man ne petition die "testing" netze frei zu geben...

Hier ist die 104/8 ...
http://twitpic.com/3w4wlt
^In der mitte...

Bekannt war das ja schon lange...aber wohin nur wohin...?

http://blog.icann.org/2009/07/more-ipv4-used-but-unallocated/
--
"IANA staff has tried to research which /8s are being used in this way.
In 2008 we sponsored research by Duane Wessels into which /8s see the
most use. He reported on his research at OARC's DNS Ops meeting and I
wrote about it on this blog. Based on this work, we think the /8s with
the most unofficial use are:

1, 2, 5, 14, 23, 39, 42, 100, 101, 107, 175 and 176"
--
und mal ein paar Gegenargumente..

http://anonet2.org/faq/
--
Why do you use 1.0.0.0/8? It's been assigned to APNIC. You should use
private (RFC1918) address space like 10.0.0.0/8.

    AnoNet is a public internet, and as such it should use public
    address space. ICANN (a private corporation) controls the public
    resources on the IcannNet (a.k.a. the "public" Internet), and has
    delegated 1.0.0.0/8 on the IcannNet to APNIC. AnoNet is a separate
    public internet, that doesn't answer to ICANN (nor to anybody else,
    for that matter). Now, that said, when AnoNet started using
    1.0.0.0/8 it was reserved (i.e., not to be allocated), but because
    of ICANN's mismanagement of the IPv4 address space (which is why
    nearly all 4 billion addresses have already been assigned, in a
    world with only 6 billion total people, including all the starving
    babies in Africa who don't even know yet what a computer is), ICANN
    had to take 1.0.0.0/8 out of its "reserved" pool and to put it into
    the "assignable" pool. AnoNet has no control over ICANN policy, so
    while AnoNet did attempt to avoid directly conflicting with IcannNet
    addresses, ICANN ultimately made sure that attempt would fail. (If
    you'd like to connect to an internet with address space that's still
    in the ICANN "reserved" pool, you may want to try VAnet.) Using
    private address space is inappropriate for a public internet, per
    RFC1918. (If you'd like to connect to an internet that uses private
    address space anyway, you may want to try dn42 athttp://www.dn42.net/.)

You should register 1.0.0.0/8, before you use it.

    By the same logic, ICANN should register 0.0.0.0/0, before it uses
    it. ICANN claims divine authority over 0.0.0.0/8, and allows people
    to use parts of it if they meet certain conditions set by the IETF
    and ICANN. The IETF conditions are reasonable if you don't assume
    that Internet is owned by ICANN. The ICANN conditions, on the other
    hand, are highly unfair and actively hurt people who want their
    freedom (by requiring them to give up their anonymity, to sign a
    restrictive agreement, and to have a relationship with a regulated
    company with its own restrictive agreement). Therefore, ICANN is not
    a suitable government for a free internet. The AnoNet1 government
    claims "trust us instead," but AnoNet2 doesn't require you to trust
    anybody. That's the only way for you to guarantee that AnoNet will
    never mismanage IP space the same way that ICANN does.

ICANN isn't mismanaging the IPv4-space. IcannNet usage is just exploding
faster than anybody ever predicted.

   
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/081610-5billion-devices-internet.html
claims
    that the IcannNet only has about 5 billion total devices, of which
    only about 1 billion "regularly connect" (PCs, laptops, etc.). There
    are plenty of possible addressing schemes that could accomodate a
    billion "regularly connecting" devices with an address space
    quadruple the size (even without NAT, if you want). ICANN clearly
    isn't using any of them. By any sane technical definition, that
    would certainly qualify as "mismanagement."

If you use 1.0.0.0/8, you're squatting on somebody else's resources.

    If you use 1.0.0.0/8 on the IcannNet, then your statement is
    correct, but AnoNet and IcannNet are two totally separate public
    internets, so it's ridiculous to accuse a participant in one to be
    squatting on resources on the other. ICANN has no divine right to
    1.0.0.0/8 (nor to any other netblock, for that matter) outside the
    IcannNet. Moreover, using 10.0.0.0/8 /would/ be squatting on private
    address space (address space that's reserved for your own home
    network), per RFC1918. (While AnoNet couldn't care less about ICANN,
    we do use the IETF protocols (with s/IcannNet/AnoNet/), so if the
    IETF says that 10.0.0.0/8 is reserved for your own home network, far
    be it from us to steal it for some "public" network.)

AnoNet runs on the IcannNet. Therefore, you _are_ squatting.

    That last accusation has no logical basis. Just because most AnoNet
    links are tunneled over the IcannNet doesn't give ICANN a right to
    rule the content of those tunnels. (In almost exactly the same way,
    just because most IcannNet links move over telecom equipment doesn't
    give the ITU a right to rule the content of those links.) In fact,
    ICANN itself will happily confirm that it has neither authority nor
    ambition to rule the content of IcannNet communications between
    endpoints, inclusive of AnoNet tunnels. Therefore, even if you buy
    the logical validity of your claim, ICANN will still shoot it down.

Okay, you're not squatting, but now that 1.0.0.0/8 is being actively
used on IcannNet, you should move to 10.0.0.0/8 to avoid conflicts.

    AnoNet is under no obligation to shrink its address space just
    because IcannNet decided to create a conflict. Also, moving to
    10.0.0.0/8 will create more conflicts than staying in 1.0.0.0/8
    (since 10.0.0.0/8 is far more congested than 1.0.0.0/8 will ever be)."

----
Ich sag auch , ein bisschen squattet doch jeder, z.b. die
UMTS-Provider...