Addressing, was Re: [MLB-WIRELESS] more important issues

[Adrian Close]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2001, Joseph Sirucka wrote:

> I believe in the 10.x.x.x since it would give more room to manevour
> when the network greatly expands and interconnectively starts to
> happen between cells.

10.0.0.0/8 is a Class A network in pre-CIDR parlance.  That's a _lot_ of
addresses.  Still, 172.16.0.0/12 is big too, as is 192.168.0.0/16 (256
Class C networks of 256 addresses each, or many more if subnetted).

Point being it doesn't really matter which RFC1918 blocks people use, so
long as they don't overlap with networks people are already connected to
(which they inevitably will at some point, so we'll end up with horribly
complex NAT gateways and a bunch of higher level protocols that just plain
won't work - Quake on the WLAN?  Forget it!).

I strongly recommend people use real, globally routable IPs (am I sounding
like a broken record yet?).  I have a /23 (two Class C's) of globally
routable, portable address space (some of which is already in use) from
which I would be willing to allocate smallish blocks to people with actual
need.  APANA have a bunch of address space they're not using.  I'm sure
other people have spare bits and pieces and we may even be able to get an
allocation from APNIC if we ask nicely.  And of course there's plenty of
IPv6 space available...  *ducks*

Adrian Close			email:	adrian at close.wattle.id.au
1 Old Gippsland Rd.		web:	http://www.close.wattle.id.au/~adrian
Lilydale, VIC, 3140, Australia	mobile:	+61 412 385 201



--
To unsubscribe, send mail to minordomo at melbwireless.dyndns.org with a subject of 'unsubscribe melbwireless'  
Archive of the Entire mailinst list at:
http://melbwireless.dyndns.org/cgi-bin/minorweb.pl?A=LIST&L=melbwireless