[MLB-WIRELESS] Re: [WG-Routing] IP allocation questions / help

[Matt]

At 09:20 AM 12/22/2002 +1100, andrewg at d2.net.au wrote:
>  Yo All
> >
> > Why would we have to change our 192.168.x.x address's not like they
> > would be seen from da out side world or the mw world ???

Depends, do you want to run a games server, maybe a nifty webcam of your 
backyard or fishtank? (all nicely secured of course). Granted people have 
the right to configure their network any way the see fit, but like Andrew 
said, it breaks the end to end bit.

>You don't have to. You could use NAT, but the biggest thing against it
>would be:
>
>- Because NAT breaks the end to end host functionality the Internet was
>built upon. It wasn't designed to have NAT and so on.

Thats what I was trying to say, if I want to say access my internet 
connection thats on the other side of a nat'd connection while I'm mobile, 
down the street, using something like ipsec (over a couple of melbwireless 
hops back home), I'm stuffed, ipsec doesn't work through nat (afaik) and 
I'm not going to put my internet connection on the same machine as my 
melbwireless node.

>Okay, I think I'll use this as an announcement place ;) I'm currently
>entertaining the idea of using zebra's prefix filtering to help ensure
>bogus routes don't propagate (eg. misguied people advertising !(Backbone or
>host) networks) in the linux routing distro by default. I'll put up a wiki
>page RSN after testing it and confirming it works. Comments anyone?

I think we are going to have to use this, there's bound to be someone who 
misconfigures their routes addresses etc and ends up filling the routing 
tables with gheyness, so we might as well implement it from the start. When 
we were testing the ospf stuff we said a few times that filtering would be 
necessary.

P.S Its early, and I've only started on my coffee.
mmmm coffeee.

Matt


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