Operational DNS? Was :Re: [MLB-WIRELESS] IP address range for Geelong?

[Roger Venning]

Adrian,

(good prior posts BTW, I support your network addressing stuff)

Regards the regulations angle, your claims are pretty accurate as far as 
my reading of the Telecommunications Act 1997 goes 
(http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ta1997214/). The key 
thing is that Section 35(3)(c) covers the 'forwarding' of communication 
in very general terms that may encompass everything from packet 
forwarding to proxy caching (although I am not a lawyer).

For more information one why this probably doesn't matter anyway if 
Internet connection is provided on non-commercial terms, see the 
previous posts
- 
http://www.wireless.org.au/cgi-bin/minorweb.pl?A=READ&L=melbwireless/2002/1/9/63
- 
http://www.wireless.org.au/cgi-bin/minorweb.pl?A=READ&L=melbwireless/2002/1/13/5

Can we turn this into a FAQ? (Along with IPv6! Even as an IPv6 supporter 
I can write something to put a damper on most gungho IPv6ers).

Roger.

Adrian Close wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, Tristan Gulyas wrote:
>
>>What regulations, exactly?  Do you require a carrier license to pass
>>Internet traffic over a private network?
>>
>
>We don't know.  No-one seems to know.  The ACA _might_ know, but they
>don't seem to be telling anyone.  :)
>
>Notionally, a carrier licence is required to provide "carriage services".
>As in, links that may carry "third party" traffic.
>
>You don't require a carrier licence to send Internet traffic over phone
>lines, because Telstra (for example) is providing the "basic carriage
>service" and _they_ have a carrier licence (or did last time I looked).
>
>>Internet <->  net gateway (running DNS server) <-> LAN <-> melbwireless-gw
>>(also running DNS server) <-> melbwireless clients
>>
>>Is this fine?
>>
>
>I'd suggest it is, if no packets from the Internet actually reach the
>wireless network clients.  As in, the wireless connected DNS server only
>provides Internet name resolution + local [slave] zones to the wireless
>clients.
>
>I suspect you can reasonably compress the two nameservers and LAN segment
>into the one machine with both wired Internet and wireless connectivity.
>
>>even closer still, how different is that from NAT'ing the packets through
>>the net gateway to globaly DNS?
>>
>
>I think this is where you might run into trouble, since you're still
>operating at network layer 3 and pretty much forwarding Internet IP-level
>traffic between wired and wireless networks.
>
>Warning: IANAL!  This is pure speculation on my part.
>
>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
>
>


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Venning	\ Do not go gentle into that good night
Melbourne        \ Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Australia <r.venning at bipond.com>                 Dylan Thomas




--
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