On Friday, April 11, 2003, at 04:28 AM, Matt Peterson wrote:
--On Sunday, April 06, 2003 01:23:21 +0200 Jacques Caron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
- create an organization that will manage the whole thing (or one per continent, at least).
This already exists, FreeNetworks.org. I agree it's not very formal, but neither are most community network groups in the wireless genre. I don't think it's appropriate for a single org to "manage" it, but rather semi-APNIC style. Educate child organizations on best practices, etc. foster a relationship; not "give me $5k a year, I'll give you some IP space".
Yes ... I think that it is not necessarily a fixed cost either, that if a need and a strong case can be demonstrated, things can be worked out.
relevant RIR (Regional Internet Registry, that's ARIN, RIPE, APNIC...)
This is a local specific agenda item. Some networks aren't planning to connect to the Internet, atleast not as a requirement to put a node on the network.
I know you're right but I have to question the utility of a CWN that's not connected to the internet ...... (keeping the utility of a network law in mind)
- it then gets (at least) one AS, and address space (the current minimum
is a /18)
Address space should be justified. I don't agree that space should cost money, but it should be "managed". Inventing wanna-be RIR's, (ie WIANA) to distro out RFC1918 address isn't progress.
I agree. I will say again, that the /true/ solution is to change the internet protocol to accommodate the needs of CWNs. Of course, barring that ;-) then what we're talking about essentially is a workaround. I think obviously to everyone is that private addresses are not the answer. So where do we get a huge chunk of address space? I think that the powers that be will be very reluctant to let go of a /8 ... and do we think that's enough anyway??? So I would be more interested in looking at IPv6 where it's easier to get big address chunks. If we're going to be doing border processing anyway, that can include IPv6 tunelling or interfaces or whatever.
This seems kinda like a pipe dream of the 44/8 netblock. Maybe if we had a /8 to re-shape, some of this could become a reality, we don't. If you want to inter-connect your network with the Internet, you have to deal with its politics (as shitty as it is, which frustrates us all).
I don't think we need to feel like we have to play by the same rules as the ISPs do. What we're talking about is a more fundamental kind of thing that should be of interest to the internet engineering folks for a number of reasons, not the least of which is a) NAT is not particularly popular in IETF either and b) IPv6 is still open for comment and CWN might represent an interesting constituency for its use.
simon
-- general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/> [un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
