[MLB-WIRELESS] IP address range for Geelong?

[Adrian Close]

On Tue, 12 Feb 2002, Luke Schapel wrote:

> In the meantime we will try and find an ip address range for Geelong

10.200.0.0/16 sounded OK to me, given current constraints.

10.200.0.0/26 for the first node - a 64 block should be enough for one
site, or more if they need it.

These are suggestions only, based on my experience with network
engineering.  Note that I've never built a city-wide network with hundreds
of nodes connected wirelessly across many different administrative
domains, so I might be wrong.  :)

Provided they stay within RFC 1918 guidelines or use globally routable
address space that is allocated to them, I don't think it much matters
what addresses they use in Geelong, especially at this stage.  Those who
build the first bits of network get a large say in the addressing scheme!

But it needs to be documented somewhere central.  Maybe this is a good use
for the Wiki.

> > Because what we are building is going to be part of the Internet (big I)
> > regardless of what people might think.
>
> So, when?

The instant the first node connects to an Internet-connected host, of any
form.

> > Read this and note it well:  Connect a network to the Internet and it
> > becomes part of the Internet.
>
> Not when it's behind a firewall.

I'd suggest you broaden the scope of your thinking and read it again.

A firewall is a device for enforcing traffic flow policy.  That's all.
If you connect one side of the firewall to the Internet, then any network
connected otherwise to the firewall becomes part of the Internet.

I'm suggesting this as part of general design philosophy.  It _will_
happen, so you may as well plan for it.

Networks also have a habit of getting connected to the Internet,
regardless of whether the people who are notionally running them want them
to be or not.

If you place absolute trust in your firewall then you _will_ be
disappointed.

> But those hacks WORK

RFC 1918 and NAT are great big network band-aids.  They do not provide a
good and elegant engineering solution.  They limit the usefulness of the
network.

> and as you say you haven't got it all figured out yet.

I said "we".  That's inclusive.  It means all of us.  Be part of the
solution (it's more fun).

> > I'm not joking.
>
> Are you sure?

Absolutely.  Email is a poor medium to express the level of seriousness
and passion these remarks represent.

Come to a meeting and talk to me about it.  Hopefully next time someone
else will start the cooking and I'll get a chance to mingle.

Adrian.


--
To unsubscribe, send mail to minordomo at wireless.org.au with a subject of 'unsubscribe melbwireless'  
Archive at: http://www.wireless.org.au/cgi-bin/minorweb.pl?A=LIST&L=melbwireless
IRC at: au.austnet.org #melb-wireless