[MLB-WIRELESS] IP addressing, OSPF and a .plan

[Jason Brice]

"I don't see public IP addresses as being an option, as IP(v4) addresses
are
a scarce resource, and we're not likely to interconnect with the
Internet
for some time anyway."


shouldn't we at least approach someone before we decide that public
address space is not feasible? Is it really responsible of us to assume
we wont get what we want and leave it at that? 

I would really hate to see this group jump into an inappropriate
design/addressing space just for the sake of "getting things moving". We
seem to be in a unique position at the moment, whereby we are under no
pressure and there is no rush to come up with addressing, how quickly
will that change if things go ahead haphazardly and before long we are
forced to renumber live links and active connections? or worse yet be
forced to implement workarounds like NAT on a large scale. /me shudders.

How many people here have actual EXPERIENCE designing large networks and
suitable, scalable addressing systems?
Lets elect a small group of experienced people to handle the addressing,
first off they can shoot for the stars and try and nab some public
address space. Failing that, they can come up with an appropriate,
private addressing design (at least for submission and consideration).

/me raises my hand.

Id love to help out/head up the team/offer advice, or whatever.

lets get things right the first time :)

J.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Langdon [mailto:tlangdon at atctraining.com.au]
Sent: Friday, 15 March 2002 8:10 AM
To: 'Justin'
Cc: 'melbwireless at wireless.org.au'
Subject: RE: [MLB-WIRELESS] IP addressing, OSPF and a .plan


>  Can we just decide to adopt net 10, net 172.16 and OSPF
>  until something better comes along? How does the saying
>  go... 'results not perfection' ??

Wel, with some minor provisos, it makes sense.

Firstly, we need to cull at least 10.0.0/24 and 172.16.0/24 from the
address
ranges used, as these are common in smaller netowrks, otherwise these
ranges
are fine.

I don't see public IP addresses as being an option, as IP(v4) addresses
are
a scarce resource, and we're not likely to interconnect with the
Internet
for some time anyway.

OSPF seems worth playing with as well.

Hmm, amateur network experimentors is starting to fit this group. :-)

This correspondence is for the named person's use only. It may contain
confidential or legally privileged information or both. No
confidentiality
or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive
this
correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system
and
notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of
this
correspondence if you are not the intended recipient.

Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual
sender.


--
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