[MLB-WIRELESS] Re: [WG-Routing] IP allocation questions / help

[Ryan Abbenhuys]

Don't make the 10.10* blocks so easy to get.  Every joe blow is going to 
think "oh, IP address, yes i believe I need one of those" and go and grab an 
allocation when they aren't doing anything but linking to john citizen two 
streets away and might as well use 192.168*.  Or they are in fact connecting 
to an AP someone else is running who already has allocated addresses to dish 
out to people.


On Mon, 23 Dec 2002 06:22:10 +1100, James Healy wrote
> Think of it like the internet.
> 
> ISPs/companies/geeks are able to pay/request/lease a globally routable
> IP space, and what they do with them, or how they setup their network
> it is up to them - provided you dont do anything that screws with
> other peoples settings or traffic.
> 
> Same thing applies for MelbWireless. We have a system where you can
> request unique IP(s) for yourself, and do with them what you will.
> 
> What we now need is some sort of robust system/guidelines to make sure
> we only assign IPs to people that need them. hell... i wrote the
> bloody software that hands em out, and requested a 10.10 block
> straight away... but once i thought about, i realised i have no need
> for one, so i plan to drop and and make it available for someone
> else...
> 
> I'm open to suggestions...
> 
> James
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-melbwireless at wireless.org.au
> > [mailto:owner-melbwireless at wireless.org.au]On Behalf Of Matt Pearce
> > Sent: Sunday, 22 December 2002 3:16 PM
> > To: melbwireless at wireless.org.au
> > Subject: Re: [MLB-WIRELESS] Re: [WG-Routing] IP allocation
> > questions /
> > help
> >
> >
> > I would personally like to steer well clear of anthing that
> > comes close to
> > NAT, NAT is a sheer pain in the neck and trying to
> > configure other services
> > to make up for lack of end to end connectivity is proving
> > to be rather a
> > nightmare in itself (read I am currently trying to get MSN
> > messenger fully
> > functional with NAT and socks5 proxy).  Although I am no
> > expert on these
> > matters I am starting to really look hard at the viability
> > of getting IPv6
> > running here although from what I have seen it presently
> > wont fix some of
> > the problems I have until it is adopted on a much larger scale.
> >
> > Just my 2 cents plus a little more.
> >
> > Matt.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Matt" <matthew.c.boyd at uts.edu.au>
> > To: <melbwireless at wireless.org.au>; <wgrouting at wireless.org.au>
> > Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2002 3:12 PM
> > Subject: Re: [MLB-WIRELESS] Re: [WG-Routing] IP allocation
> > questions / help
> >
> >
> > > At 09:20 AM 12/22/2002 +1100, andrewg at d2.net.au wrote:
> > > >  Yo All
> > > > >
> > > > > Why would we have to change our 192.168.x.x address's
> > not like they
> > > > > would be seen from da out side world or the mw world ???
> > >
> > > Depends, do you want to run a games server, maybe a nifty
> > webcam of your
> > > backyard or fishtank? (all nicely secured of course).
> > Granted people have
> > > the right to configure their network any way the see fit,
> > but like Andrew
> > > said, it breaks the end to end bit.
> > >
> > > >You don't have to. You could use NAT, but the biggest
> > thing against it
> > > >would be:
> > > >
> > > >- Because NAT breaks the end to end host functionality
> > the Internet was
> > > >built upon. It wasn't designed to have NAT and so on.
> > >
> > > Thats what I was trying to say, if I want to say access
> > my internet
> > > connection thats on the other side of a nat'd connection
> > while I'm mobile,
> > > down the street, using something like ipsec (over a
> > couple of melbwireless
> > > hops back home), I'm stuffed, ipsec doesn't work through
> > nat (afaik) and
> > > I'm not going to put my internet connection on the same
> > machine as my
> > > melbwireless node.
> > >
> > > >Okay, I think I'll use this as an announcement place ;)
> > I'm currently
> > > >entertaining the idea of using zebra's prefix filtering
> > to help ensure
> > > >bogus routes don't propagate (eg. misguied people
> > advertising !(Backbone
> > or
> > > >host) networks) in the linux routing distro by default.
> > I'll put up a
> > wiki
> > > >page RSN after testing it and confirming it works.
> > Comments anyone?
> > >
> > > I think we are going to have to use this, there's bound
> > to be someone who
> > > misconfigures their routes addresses etc and ends up
> > filling the routing
> > > tables with gheyness, so we might as well implement it
> > from the start.
> > When
> > > we were testing the ospf stuff we said a few times that
> > filtering would be
> > > necessary.
> > >
> > > P.S Its early, and I've only started on my coffee.
> > > mmmm coffeee.
> > >
> > > Matt
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> >
> >
> 
> 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