[MLB-WIRELESS] IP address range for Geelong?

[Andrew Tiltman]

thats not a bad idea hey, using the last three digits of post codes
10.x.postcode(last 3 digits).node
it would eat up the ranges quick though.

-Andrew


----- 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