[MLB-WIRELESS] National IP allocation and routing sche me??

[Simon J Mudd]

evilbunny at sydneywireless.com (evilbunny) writes:

> Inter AP routing wouldn't matter, the only issue is with client's
> being able to access servers...

Really?  If the node's router provides services like SMTP or IRC there is a
clear need to allow connections between the servers. It also is much
easier if you use a different address space for inter-node links from
"client IPs" (something which hasn't been mentioned much before) as IP
filtering can be implemented much easier if you can distinguish
"router" ips from "client" ips.

Then again I still think that there is a good chance that client <-->
client connections may be established, even if this is less common.
Providing an infrastructure where this isn't possible (or is
difficult) is IMO a mistake.

I've entered this thread rather late, having been away from home for a
while, but I do hope that whatever addressing scheme is decided on
that it gets "registered" and duplicate addressing is avoided where
possible.

Preassigning addresses "just in case" is great, but is not probably
realistic.  Other large radio networks like the ampr.org network (used
by radio hams) did this and a great part of the allocated space is
simply not used.  If we use dynamic routing protocols it's no longer
difficult to add more disjoint addresses to those that are being used
and this is much more "address friendly" than some of the selections
being suggested here.

It's just a shame that there is no easy way to agree a global
assignment mechanism and to use that.  Now it doesn't matter much, but
in the future if the wireless networks grow as a lot of us hope then
things will become much more complicated.

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 majordomo at wireless.org.au
with "unsubscribe melbwireless" in the body of the message