[MLB-WIRELESS] IP Addressing

[Roger Venning]

I fully support this, and would recommend the nice (and so far 
unreserved) range of 10.10.0.0/16 (ie. 10.10.x.x) for drawing blocks of 
16 addesses (/28) for nodes to use for connected subnetworks - ie. home 
networks, client wireless nodes that do not support routing (e.g. those 
operating on infrastructure mode in a neighbours flat / at a Cafe etc.)

For IP addresses found on the end of wireless interfaces on nodes that 
support routing, I would recommend using a different set of addresses, 
from the 172.16.0.0/12 network. These nodes would then advertise 
their /32 allocation(s) from the 172.16 subnet as well as reachability 
to connected /28s drawn from 10.10 subnet into the OSPF mesh (locally) 
and potentially aggregated routes through Internet wormholes via eBGP. 

I am thinking that the only way to determine the applicability of OSPF 
areas and geographic address allocation (and potentially iBGP) is 
through meshing simulations; the kind of network we all hope for is 
very different to the architectures the now commercial Internet runs 
on. The primary place this kind of thing has been considered is within 
the MANET group of the IETF, but they complicated their task by 
presuming that all nodes would likely be mobile and link lifetimes low.

Roger.

----- Original Message -----
From: Simon J Mudd <sjmudd at pobox.com>
Date: Tuesday, April 9, 2002 5:12 am
Subject: Re: [MLB-WIRELESS] IP Addressing

> adrian at close.wattle.id.au (Adrian Close) writes:
> 
> > Incidentally, there should be no problem having a mix of RFC1918 and
> > "real" addresses on our eventual MAN.  They're all just 
> addresses, after
> > all, and will happily co-exist in routing tables.
> > 
> > Pick something that isn't in use.  Be prepared to renumber at 
> some point.
> 
> I've mentioned this before, but...is it not worth mentioning
> http://www.freenetworks.org/moin/index.cgi/NetworkAddressAllocations
> on your page somewhere and "registering" whichever range of addresses
> you MelbWireless are going to use?  GeelongWireless (appears to be
> registered, although MelbWireless isn't), even if the contact address
> for Geelong wireless looks rather suspect.
> 
> Ensure that your addresses won't be duplicated by "registering them"
> or ensure that in the future, conflicts will occur and you may never
> be able to have access to [some] other wireless groups.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Simon
> --
> Simon J Mudd,   Tel: +34-91-408 4878,  Mobile: +34-605-085 219
> Madrid, Spain.  email: sjmudd at pobox.com,  Postfix RPM Packager
> 
> To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo at wireless.org.au
> with "unsubscribe melbwireless" in the body of the message
> 
> 
 


To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo at wireless.org.au
with "unsubscribe melbwireless" in the body of the message