[MLB-WIRELESS] FW: Proposal for a new Melbourne Wireless routing policy

[Nick Sibbing]

Dan
I think it looks like a sensible proposal looks at our resources and 
likely expansion and takes all our needs into account I say go for it

Regards nick

Dan Flett wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>I've not received any commentary at all on this proposal yet.  Perhaps my
>original posting was not all that well-timed.
>
>I would like to get some sort of feedback on this - even if it's just "good"
>or "no good" - be it publicly on the list (preferable) or privately.
>
>I am hoping to put this proposal, modified with any feedback, to the
>committee so we can modify LocFinder and begin a trial phase.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Dan
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dan Flett [mailto:conhoolio at hotmail.com] 
>Sent: Thursday, 20 January 2005 6:04 PM
>To: melbwireless at wireless.org.au
>Subject: Proposal for a new Melbourne Wireless routing policy
>
>In the midst of all this "why are we here?" discussion, I hope people have
>time to digest and respond to some nitty-gritty future-direction stuff. ;)
>
>Here's my proposal for a new, BGP-based routing policy for our network.
>
>This would replace the current OSPF-Area-based policy.
>
>By coincidence, or convergent-thinking, this proposal resembles a one put
>forward by Sydney Wireless here:
>http://www.sydneywireless.org/index.php?pagename=BackBone&action=PageInfo
>
>I would like this proposal to be reviewed and critiqued by any interested
>persons.
>
>Glossary:
>
>AS: Autonomous System - a network of nodes under common direct
>administration, using a single internal routing protocol.
>
>ASN: Autonomous System Number - as used in BGP
>
>BGP: Border Gateway Protocol - an external routing protocol
>
>Cluster: A geographically close grouping of nodes.
>
>IETF: The Internet Engineering Task Force
>
>Link: A connection between two nodes
>
>Node: A point of connection to a network
>
>OSPF: Open Shortest Path First - an internal routing protocol
>
>
>I propose the following:
>
>* Keep the current geographic area-based IP allocation scheme as
>administered by LocFinder. (See Note 1)
>
>* Allow any "Operational" or "Testing" nodes to request a BGP ASN from
>LocFinder.  LocFinder will keep track of which ASNs have been allocated in
>an ASN allocation database, just as it currently does with IP addresses.
>ASNs will be allocated from the IETF ASN Private Space - being #64512 -
>#65535.  This allows for 1023 BGP "areas". (See Note 2)
>
>* To allow for the possible depletion of private ASN space, nodes within a
>closely linked cluster can choose to share a BGP ASN amongst themselves and
>use an internal routing protocol such as OSPF.  From a LocFinder point of
>view, any node should be allowed to choose the ASN of any of it's link
>partners instead of requesting a new, unique ASN for itself. (See Note 3)
>
>* Any node with a single link (a leaf or client node) to one other node does
>not need to run any routing protocol at all.  A default route, installed by
>the "other" node via DHCP will be sufficient.
>
>* A node with two or more links to nodes within a singe AS cluster does not
>need to run BGP, but does need to run the internal routing protocol of that
>cluster (e.g. OSPF).
>
>* A node which makes links to nodes outside its home AS cluster needs to run
>BGP.  The node configuration will need to know the following:
> ** The nodes' own ASN
> ** The ASNs of it's link partners
> ** The IP addresses of other BGP speakers in the nodes' home AS - this is
>so that the node can use iBGP to coordinate eBGP routing information to
>other border gateways.
> ** Internal routing protocol configuration and redistribution of routes
>between BGP and the Internal Routing Protocol (e.g. OSPF)
> (See Note 4)
>
>Notes:
>
>1. I no longer believe that the region group supernetting used in the
>current IP allocation scheme will help with routing by allowing the
>aggregation of routes.  The nature of wireless networking means that it is
>impossible to predict where clusters will form and which areas will link to
>which.  I can see no easy way of allocating IP addresses to enable route
>aggregation.  However I believe that we can just accept this as a fact of
>life.  The current IP allocation system isn't broken and doesn't need to be
>changed.  If in the future the address space of any area becomes depleted,
>the unused space of other areas could be used.
>
>2. I believe it will be a long time before we have more than 1023 routing
>nodes on the network.  So until that happens, do we need to run internal
>routing protocols at all?  Will a BGP-only network work, where each routing
>node has a unique ASN?  By the time we reach 1023 routing nodes, the BGP
>protocol will likely have been updated to allow more ASNs overall.
>
>3. Clusters that use OSPF should enable simple authentication on their
>interfaces - and the authentication password should be that cluster's BGP
>ASN.  This will prevent OSPF in neighboring clusters from communicating
>directly, and will help prevent OSPF from being destabilized by
>misconfigured or default-configured routers.  I strongly recommend NOT using
>non-backbone OSPF areas as these add an extra layer of administrative
>complexity.  The only OSPF Area in use in any cluster should be Area 0.
>
>4.  As suggested in the SydneyWireless link above, LocFinder could calculate
>and supply a nodes' configuration information in an XML file, in
>human-readable format.  The node-owner could either enter this information
>manually, or software running on the node could parse the XML file and
>configure itself.
>
>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