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

[Matt Pearce]

I would personally like to steer well clear of anthing that comes close to
NAT, NAT is a sheer pain in the neck and trying to configure other services
to make up for lack of end to end connectivity is proving to be rather a
nightmare in itself (read I am currently trying to get MSN messenger fully
functional with NAT and socks5 proxy).  Although I am no expert on these
matters I am starting to really look hard at the viability of getting IPv6
running here although from what I have seen it presently wont fix some of
the problems I have until it is adopted on a much larger scale.

Just my 2 cents plus a little more.

Matt.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matthew.c.boyd at uts.edu.au>
To: <melbwireless at wireless.org.au>; <wgrouting at wireless.org.au>
Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2002 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: [MLB-WIRELESS] Re: [WG-Routing] IP allocation questions / help


> 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
>
>


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