[MLB-WIRELESS] National IP allocation and routing scheme??

[evilbunny]

Hello David,

DA> a) we're using rfc1918 space.  this is anti-social in the first place.
DA>    but it has been decided (for melb-wireless), and raising IPv6 again
DA>    won't rescind the decision.  i'd like to minimise the impact (and,
DA>    for example, leaving 10.0/16 unallocated is part of that).

Not antisocial, APNIC or any other registry would be completely
bonkers to give us address space, so this doesn't exactly leave us
much choice...

No decision is ever final, and long term most groups are assuming at
least this will happen before long, it's just a matter of what to do
in the mean time...

DA> b) since most of the wireless groups seems to be using the 10/8 space,
DA>    and since inter-group tunnels are a potential good thing
DA>    (especially if we're not routing to the Internet, tunnelling might
DA>    give us a critical mass of services), we can either rely on NAT or
DA>    attempt to coordinate address allocations.  coordination doesn't
DA>    seem too hard, and the downsides of NAT are very significant.

Bidirectional NAT'ing, I'm guessing you like to live life as hard as
possible right?

DA> c) is there *any* single wireless group in the world that needs 16
DA>    million addresses in the next few years (before it is reasonable to
DA>    move to IPv6) ?  if so, they could possibly argue a "need".  i
DA>    don't think we can.

Has nothing to do with needing 16million, however what if all the
groups in the world subscribed to the freenetworks scheme, how many IP
blocks would be needed, my suggestions are merely to facilitate
growth, what if there is a LAN meeting and some members would like to
be apart of it, why not have spare space lying about to try and
facilitate a 300-800 player network and yet be wireless routeable...

DA> given the population of australia, and the number of those prepared to
DA> spend the money required to have an 802.11 node, and the number of
DA> those interested in the medium term ... i think 16 million is a little
DA> more than "need".

Given the number of IP's nerds like to have rather then need, it's
quite possible that we could start to accumulate highish numbers...

DA> 64000 seems like too few hosts, but really, it'll probably do for
DA> several years.

in 12 months time what if... Perth gets 2000 members, Melbourne gets
3000, Brisbane gets 2 to 3000 and Sydney likewise, little more then
64000 needed (under the suggestions I've already voiced), it's not
about current need it's about efficient routing when the need arises of
more address space...

DA> given these constraints, one option is to forego the possibility of
DA> inter-group non-NATed tunnels, and accept collision in 10/8.  it's
DA> certainly an easy way out.

One option is to deal with Australia first and the rest of the world
separately when/if we need to... I mean at the going rate who will be
able to afford the pipes to connect to them?

DA> but until there is really a *need* for it, trying to cooperate seems
DA> to have some benefits ...

It's more then possible to deal with .au we just have to agree on
address space between us, that's all there is to it...

-- 
Best regards,
 evilbunny                            mailto:evilbunny at sydneywireless.com

http://www.SydneyWireless.com - Exercise your communications
freedom to make it do what you never thought possible... 


To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo at wireless.org.au
with "unsubscribe melbwireless" in the body of the message