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

Mon Dec 23 12:21:58 EST 2002

Hello Matt,

The guys from consume have done their own thing, so their IP ranges
conflict with most others as well, on a lighter note, guys in Brisbane
elected to use 10.160/11 iirc, so at the very least I doubt there
would be any conflicts of space in the country...

-- 
Best regards,
 evilbunny                            mailto:evilbunny at sydneywireless.com

You must leave now - you have no choice..

http://www.cacert.org - Free Security Certificates
http://www.nodedb.com - Think globally, network locally
http://www.sydneywireless.com - Telecommunications Freedom

Monday, December 23, 2002, 11:28:59 AM, you wrote:

M> I don't think it's going to be a major problem running out of addresses, I 
M> can't remember how many addresses there are in the range we reserved but 
M> there were a heck of a lot. I think if every node, interested, active 
M> whatever requested the minimum /28 then we'd still have enough to hand a 
M> couple of thousand at least. If it becomes a problem we can always just 
M> start using IP's outside the reserved range. If we ever do get to the point 
M> where we are connecting to a wireless network in Europe, then we'd probably 
M> be silly to not use ipv6 or at least some non-private space ip4 addies.

M> Earlier on we did discuss the routing nodes being in charge. Basically, 
M> since they would be routing, if you weren't able to route then you'd have 
M> to go through them anyway, so you'd have to ask whoever was routing for you 
M> to request a block of IP's and allocate them to you. I think the current 
M> scheme where you can request a block to use and either set up a router 
M> yourself or get the nearest router to do it for you is probably the easiest 
M> way to go. It gives people a bit more leeway and privacy as to what they 
M> choose to do with their IPs, you don't have to be beholden to the nearest 
M> router nazi :)

M> We don't need to be overly conservative about how many we hand out and who 
M> to, the current scheme / policy is fine.

M> Matt.

M> At 06:22 AM 12/23/2002 +1100, James Healy wrote:
>>Think of it like the internet.
>>
>>ISPs/companies/geeks are able to pay/request/lease a globally routable
>>IP space, and what they do with them, or how they setup their network
>>it is up to them - provided you dont do anything that screws with
>>other peoples settings or traffic.
>>
>>Same thing applies for MelbWireless. We have a system where you can
>>request unique IP(s) for yourself, and do with them what you will.
>>
>>What we now need is some sort of robust system/guidelines to make sure
>>we only assign IPs to people that need them. hell... i wrote the
>>bloody software that hands em out, and requested a 10.10 block
>>straight away... but once i thought about, i realised i have no need
>>for one, so i plan to drop and and make it available for someone
>>else...
>>
>>I'm open to suggestions...
>>
>>James
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: owner-melbwireless at wireless.org.au
>> > [mailto:owner-melbwireless at wireless.org.au]On Behalf Of Matt Pearce
>> > Sent: Sunday, 22 December 2002 3:16 PM
>> > To: melbwireless at wireless.org.au
>> > Subject: Re: [MLB-WIRELESS] Re: [WG-Routing] IP allocation
>> > questions /
>> > help
>> >
>> >
>> > 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
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo at wireless.org.au
>>with "unsubscribe melbwireless" in the body of the message

M> To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo at wireless.org.au
M> with "unsubscribe melbwireless" in the body of the message
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 1966 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.wireless.org.au/pipermail/melbwireless/attachments/20021223/2cfeb947/attachment.p7s>