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

[Random]

I thought I'd throw my 2c in here, I've been in a few similar
discussions with others about ip's also for a short while I played with
the idea of being freenetworks ip friendly (ie, using a small bunch of
ip's that doesn't conflict worldwide). Modeling wireless networks on the
Internet is a very good thing for many reasons, but one of them should
not involve dividing up 10.* (and or 192.*, etc) to use worldwide. With
all the current trouble with IPv4 especialy!

But anyway, there definatly should be consistency in Australia at least,
personally as I have said before on syd-wire I don't see any advantage
using more than just 10.*, I don't see any use in using 172*/192* for ap
communications and such. If you want 10.x can be logically divided so
that you know exactly what is a client, and what is an ap/node, but also
more importantly as EB just said, route summarisation is critically
important, especially when you start to envision the complex routing we
_will_ be dealing with, a semi-mesh network as this is can quickly
become a routing nightmare, unless initial thought is put into it.

Nb, someone mentioned possibility of filtering client -> client comms, I
hope you relise that half the purpose of these wireless networks is
client->client comms! ;)

I've posted various detailed idea's on how to overcome these issues, and
how ip's could be efficiently allocated, have a look in the syd-wire
mailing list archive to see. (middle last month)

---
Martin Laukkanen (random at sectoid.org)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: evilbunny [mailto:evilbunny at sydneywireless.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2002 3:54 AM
> To: Simon J Mudd
> Cc: melbwireless at wireless.org.au
> Subject: Re[8]: [MLB-WIRELESS] National IP allocation and 
> routing sche me??
> 
> 
> Hello Simon,
> 
> >> Inter AP routing wouldn't matter, the only issue is with client's 
> >> being able to access servers...
> 
> SJM> Really?  If the node's router provides services like SMTP or IRC 
> SJM> there is a clear need to allow connections between the 
> servers. It 
> SJM> also is much easier if you use a different address space for 
> SJM> inter-node links from "client IPs" (something which hasn't been 
> SJM> mentioned much before) as IP filtering can be implemented much 
> SJM> easier if you can distinguish "router" ips from "client" ips.
> 
> I think you missed one slight issue, for the client to talk 
> to the router it will obviously need to be on the same 
> subnet, or at least know how to talk to it...
> 
> SJM> I've entered this thread rather late, having been away from home 
> SJM> for a while, but I do hope that whatever addressing scheme is 
> SJM> decided on that it gets "registered" and duplicate addressing is 
> SJM> avoided where possible.
> 
> IPv6 is the only hope for a world wide parallel network such 
> as what's being proposed could happen...
> 
> SJM> Preassigning addresses "just in case" is great, but is 
> not probably 
> SJM> realistic.  Other large radio networks like the ampr.org network 
> SJM> (used by radio hams) did this and a great part of the allocated 
> SJM> space is simply not used.  If we use dynamic routing 
> protocols it's 
> SJM> no longer difficult to add more disjoint addresses to those that 
> SJM> are being used and this is much more "address friendly" 
> than some 
> SJM> of the selections being suggested here.
> 
> Little problem with efficiency however, by tacking on later 
> this can do serious damage to route updates as links go up 
> and down... Because you can't summarise the routes more simply...
> 
> SJM> It's just a shame that there is no easy way to agree a global 
> SJM> assignment mechanism and to use that.  Now it doesn't 
> matter much, 
> SJM> but in the future if the wireless networks grow as a lot 
> of us hope 
> SJM> then things will become much more complicated.
> 
> It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, we're building 
> our own internet (please no semantics) effectively with the 
> potential to go world wide, how much address space do you 
> suppose this is likely to take up?
> 
> -- 
> 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


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