On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 01:01:19PM +0100, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: > If it is self contained, does it matter what addresses you use?
Sorry that was poorly worded. It's self-contained in that by default there is no default route onto the internet, however some sites may offer free internet access by advertising a second global prefix on their node only. The other option for internet access is via a gateway of some sort, which you connect to using PPPoE etc, and you get a global IP from there. So the addresses we use on the network cant clash with anything outside. > >If it was possible to use global addresses then I would, however rules > >regarding the IPv6 address space allocation make this a near > >impossibility > >for us. :( > > What prohibits you from getting an adequate number of addresses? Well each access point is typically located in someones house, if we go with the recommendations then that's a /48 prefix. So looking to the future we need a large amount of address space, but since it's a community project we dont want to (i.e. can't) pay anything. I should probably be campaigning for community networks in general, so if you want all of these to have global addresses then we're probably into the realms of a /16... If we really wasnt to avoid site-locals then I think the location based addressing I pointed to a while back could be a neat solution, since it gives everybody a block of address space "automatically" and then it's up to the site as to whether it's made globally routable - you'd have to negotiate it with your ISP. I'm probably biased about this though since it ties in with my PhD work... :) Cheers, Mike -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
