[MLB-WIRELESS] ip allocation list based on suburb

[ProFX]

But what about the people that want to connect more than one machine and run
the same service more than one machine and have it accessible from outside?

NAT may be useful, but it isn't a solution to everything.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael McKinnon" <MichaelM at zonewerx.com>
To: <melbwireless at wireless.org.au>
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 1:15 PM
Subject: RE: [MLB-WIRELESS] ip allocation list based on suburb


> I like the suburb allocation idea, but why not go back to postcodes with:
>
> Postcode 3000 = 10.30.1.x
> Postcode 3121 = 10.31.21.x
> Postcode 3550 = 10.35.50.x
> Postcode 3032 = 10.30.32.x
>
> It just depends how the C class that is left is separated.  In reality,
each
> node should not require more than 1 IP for each link to each other node,
so
> what is the average number of nodes in each suburb going to be?



--
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