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

[Matt]

I don't think it's going to be a major problem running out of addresses, I 
can't remember how many addresses there are in the range we reserved but 
there were a heck of a lot. I think if every node, interested, active 
whatever requested the minimum /28 then we'd still have enough to hand a 
couple of thousand at least. If it becomes a problem we can always just 
start using IP's outside the reserved range. If we ever do get to the point 
where we are connecting to a wireless network in Europe, then we'd probably 
be silly to not use ipv6 or at least some non-private space ip4 addies.

Earlier on we did discuss the routing nodes being in charge. Basically, 
since they would be routing, if you weren't able to route then you'd have 
to go through them anyway, so you'd have to ask whoever was routing for you 
to request a block of IP's and allocate them to you. I think the current 
scheme where you can request a block to use and either set up a router 
yourself or get the nearest router to do it for you is probably the easiest 
way to go. It gives people a bit more leeway and privacy as to what they 
choose to do with their IPs, you don't have to be beholden to the nearest 
router nazi :)

We don't need to be overly conservative about how many we hand out and who 
to, the current scheme / policy is fine.

Matt.

At 06:22 AM 12/23/2002 +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