Mike Saywell wrote: > 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.
Read: Internet IP's are globally unique: get IP's from your upstream. If one defines site-local addresses there are bound to be multiple organizations using the same 'easy to remember' prefixes. Cause thats why some companies also NAT to eachother. Eg company A uses 10.0.0.0/8 and company B has that too. How not handy. One thing which could be done is allowing the registration of say /48's at the RIR's from a pool of address space. But that would match up getting space from your upstream and will only create swamps. > > >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. So you don't pay for the hardware either or the traffic either. Bummer. Get it from an upstream or get a good sponsor. > 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... :) What you need is multihoming and you are referring to something known as GFN (Geo For Now). But that has nothing to do with using sitelocals. That's a multihoming issue. This is also apparent as you do not intend to have any upstream of yourselves. Greets, Jeroen -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
