15 Jun
2015
15 Jun
'15
2:47 a.m.
On 15.06.2015 07:51, Tim Osburn wrote:
There would be no NATTING in this setup since to be
the ISP for this
design you will need to allow the 44 IP space to egress without being
NATTED. There is no reason you need to NAT public IP Space to public
space other then a policy, which if that is the case then you're not a
good fit for a 44 IP space egress server.
I was just thinking about the IPIP-Mesh Linux Boxes (source-route
filtered) which have a routing table like this:
0.0.0.0/0 via ISP
44.a.b.c/16 via IPIP-Endpoint X
44.x.y.z/20 via IPIP-Endpoint Y
44.o.p.q/22 via IPIP-Endpoint Z
...
Would be nice to have the 53 BGP prefixes in that table. Otherwise the
connection will be established through the ISP (and therefore will be
NATed). It would be just a nice *option* to keep the end-to-end
communication in Network44 alive (if we consider backward compatibility).
73,
Jann
--
Jann Traschewski, Faber-Castell-Str. 9, D-90522 Oberasbach, Germany
Tel.: +49-911-99946898, Mobile: +49-170-1045937, E-Mail: jann(a)gmx.de
Ham: DG8NGN / DB0VOX, http://www.qsl.net/dg8ngn