[MLB-WIRELESS] IP address range for Geelong?

[Roger Venning]

(Comments inline.)

Simon J Mudd wrote:

>>>>>>"Adrian" == Adrian Close <adrian at close.wattle.id.au> writes:
>>>>>>
>
>Adrian> On 12 Feb 2002, Simon J Mudd wrote:
>
>>>This allows you "at some later stage" to link up (probably not
>>>by radio!) to other groups around the world. If you have an ip
>>>address conflict it'll be much harder to do this.
>>>
>
>Adrian> /me throws hands in air and calls on a deity to give him
>Adrian> strength.
>
>Adrian> I can see why this registry seems logical.  What it misses
>Adrian> is the fact that the RFC 1918 ranges are not globally
>Adrian> routable, _by design_.
>
>True, but also these addresses have always been considered "local
>addresses", or almost site-local in ipv6 terminology.  Thus if the
>allocations don't conflict at least the site-local could be all
>wireless groups world-wide. (?)
>
Exactly. There are benefits that can accrue if we take the time to think 
before typing 'ifconfig' or your 'ip' :-)

>
>
>Adrian> I think we'd be better off campaigning to obtain a globally
>Adrian> routable IPv4 allocation for use on community-baased wireless
>Adrian> networks around the world (similar to net 44 in concept, I
>Adrian> guess).
>
>That would be great, but when the 44.x.x.x allocation was requested it
>was before there was such a demand for IP addresses.  I somehow doubt
>that a class C assignment will be allocated in the future. I might be
>wrong though.
>
These organisations are now quite miserly in their handouts. We would 
need to show we aim for quite high addressing efficiency in the two year 
time frame, ie. we expect X operational nodes in two years time, packing 
density say 70% = X/0.7 addresses we get now, and need to manage to do 
it appropriately. Not impossible, but harder.

>
>
>Adrian> We have ARIN, APNIC and RIPE.  Perhaps we could create a WNIC
>Adrian> organisation to handle global allocation of such addresses.
>Adrian> There's plenty of IPv4 space left.
>
>Really? I was under the impression that was not the situation, and
>that's why IPv6 is being deployed, although slowly.  It's also why we
>have to use NAT rather than use real IP addresses.
>
This is why we have to use NAT to connect to the IPv4 internet. We can 
however connect any such nodes that use overlaid or native IPv6 links in 
parallel with IPv4 directly to the emerging IPv6 Internet - the 6Bone. 
The benefit here is that services that work through NAT are able to be 
used with IPv4. Those that don't (incoming services for example) will 
have to 'put up' with IPv6, but they get some ability to have service at 
least.

>
>
>However I agree a global assignment of IP addresses for wireless use
>would be great especially with IPv4.  From what I've seen there is a
>great deal of interest in this and most is still non-commercial.
>
>Regards,
>
>Simon
>--
>Simon J Mudd,   Tel: +34-91-408 4878,  Mobile: +34-605-085 219
>Madrid, Spain.  email: sjmudd at pobox.com,  Postfix RPM Packager
>
>--
>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