[MLB-WIRELESS] ip allocation list based on suburb

[vortex]

This thread has gone around most if not all of the community/open wireless 
lists gobally.

With respect, don't consider allocating IP networks on the basis of 
geography. It will not help with routing simplicity. Multiple p2p links just 
will not align themselves with preallocated networks along netmask 
boundaries, and the topology will likely be unpredictable until its there ... 
%^}

And secondly, don't even consider geo-based routing protocols/schemas. This 
is not AX25, and we do not have the luxury of high overlap between active 
network gateway/node areas.

.vortex

On Wednesday 13 February 2002  2:36 am, Drew Whittle wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-02-13 at 16:10, darrend at natwide.com.au wrote:
> > I'm sure this has been mentioned before....
> > We all agree that we'll eventually need to use an ip routing protocol (ie
> > not static routes) to allow for redundancy and multihoming. That being
> > the case, it does NOT matter what ip's are allocated where. Forget about
> > this
>
> You still want to minimise the complexity of your routing.
>
> > suburb, postcode or whatever else crap for IP's. Remember why DNS was
> > invented???
>
> Because it is easier for people to remember words than a string of
> numbers. DNS has _nothing_ to do with routing.
>
> :D

----------------------------------------
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
----------------------------------------

--
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