[MLB-WIRELESS] IP address range for Geelong?

[Will Lotto]

[said by the guy in the corner throwing spanners]

uhh, bendigo's postcode is 3550 ... so what, I'd get 10.x.550.node?
Looks like an IP address from the film 'the net'

> 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


---
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759


--
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