[MLB-WIRELESS] IP address range for Geelong?

[Alexander Cohen]

Sounds like a great idea, with one problem, the last 3 digits of the
postcode go higher than 255..
That means you would be trying to use an octet like for example .260. (for
Bookaar) which isn't exactly
valid under IPV4. You could break it up across two octets however, but it
wouldn't be quite as
easily followed by everyone who doesn't understand CIDR etc..

    --- Alex

----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg" <turbo at alphalink.com.au>
To: <melbwireless at wireless.org.au>
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: [MLB-WIRELESS] IP address range for Geelong?


> I'm no MSCE but could we consider the last three digits of the Nodes
> PostCode as the IP in there somewhere so as to easier recognise the
general
> location?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Adrian Close" <adrian at close.wattle.id.au>
> To: <melbwireless at wireless.org.au>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 1:51 PM
> Subject: RE: [MLB-WIRELESS] IP address range for Geelong?
>
>
> > On Tue, 12 Feb 2002, ABBENHUYS, Ryan wrote:
> >
> > > Perhaps we should add an IP alloction table sort of page to the
> Melbwireless
> > > website.
> >
> > *chants*  Documentation!  Documentation!  Documentation!   *thwack*
> >
> > We should definitely document IP address allocations.  And we should
start
> > as soon as we start handing them out (trying to sort it out later is a
> > right pain).
> >
> > We should also _definitely_ plan for connecting Melbourne <-> Geelong.
> > Actually I think we should plan for connections to the world, but that's
> > another story...
> >
> > Putting my personal preference for globally routing IP allocations aside
> > for the moment, I would suggest that "everything above 10.200.0.0" is
> > rather a lot of address space to be giving out (even if it is
"private").
> >
> > Perhaps we could start with 10.200.0.0/16 instead (i.e. 10.200.x.y) for
> > Geelong and allocate Class C blocks out of that (e.g. 10.200.1.0/24) for
> > individual Geelong sites.  That of course only allows for 256 Geelong
> > sites, but this is a problem I'd _like_ to have and we can always move
on
> > to 10.201/16 (or allocate smaller blocks per site in the first place -
> > /26's or something).
> >
> > > Could be in a members only section possibly?
> >
> > I don't see any problem with publically accessible network
documentation,
> > especially for a public, community network.  Now, access to _maintain_
the
> > documentation is another story.  It occurs to me that DNS is a great way
> > to distribute public network documentation...  :)
> >
> > Adrian.
> >
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, send mail to minordomo at wireless.org.au with a subject of
> 'unsubscribe melbwireless'
> > Archive at:
> http://www.wireless.org.au/cgi-bin/minorweb.pl?A=LIST&L=melbwireless
> > IRC at: au.austnet.org #melb-wireless
> >
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send mail to minordomo at wireless.org.au with a subject of
'unsubscribe melbwireless'
> Archive at:
http://www.wireless.org.au/cgi-bin/minorweb.pl?A=LIST&L=melbwireless
> IRC at: au.austnet.org #melb-wireless
>
>


--
To unsubscribe, send mail to minordomo at wireless.org.au with a subject of 'unsubscribe melbwireless'  
Archive at: http://www.wireless.org.au/cgi-bin/minorweb.pl?A=LIST&L=melbwireless
IRC at: au.austnet.org #melb-wireless