Ben, that only makes sense if you stick the wireless network behind a NAT
as 10./8 is an rfc 1918 is a reserved block for private internets


from the rfc
"""
The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) has reserved the
following three blocks of the IP address space for private internets:



10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255 (10/8 prefix) 172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255 (172.16/12 prefix) 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255 (192.168/16 prefix) """

And while it would be cool to have a wi-fi repeater network
that would seamlessly route traffic to the nearest/fastest uplink
there are some unsolved problems.

technical:
addressing - what determines the address of a (possibly mobile) client
routing - how does traffic get to the internet or get routed across the mesh
multi-homing - if there are multiple uplinks to the internet how do you resolve routing
resource management - how do you deal with bandwidth hogs?

practical:
who pays for upstream bandwidth
who buys and deploys the infrastructure


On Friday, July 25, 2003, at 05:26 PM, Ben Barrett wrote:

Would you consider it reasonable to pick some range in 10.x.y.z to call
"Eugene's FreeMesh"?  What sort of collective or standards should be
defined for such a grab -- the IP allocation is LAN roughly speaking,
right?  and the wifi is unlicensed...  what to do, what to do.

ben



On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 17:25:02 -0700
Cory Petkovsek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| ...however the configuration is as static as the cd.
|
| Cory
_______________________________________________
EuG-LUG mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug


This is a Signature: Someday soon it will have clever sayings and URL's

_______________________________________________
EuG-LUG mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug

Reply via email to