11 Aug
2021
11 Aug
'21
3:05 a.m.
On 10/8/21 7:23 pm, Toussaint OTTAVI via 44Net wrote:
Just to say I fully agree with the TAC proposal.
Here in Corsica, we've been experimenting such a scenario for 2 years
now :
- a 44.168 "Intranet" subnet (routed locally on the island)
- a 44.190 "Internet" subnet (routed on Internet via BGP)
Looks like
you're effectively doing what the TAC is proposing, but on a
smaller scale, which is a good model to start from.
The only constraint for us with the TAC proposal is
that we'll have to
renumber our 44.190.11.0/24 to something in 44.0.0.0/10. We have 21
child prefixes and 40 IP addresses to renumber. Of course, this will
require some time, but it's not as if we had thousands of addresses
:-) If we don't make mistakes, all can be done remotely :-)
I've got over
200 IPs, and the most annoying part is that a couple of
the addresses require manual intervention by the administrators of
services (D-STAR REF admin and IRLP admins), so end users can find the
new IP, and there's no scope for a "soft" cutover, it's an
"either/or"
scenario, and the extreme time difference involved means there will be
downtime, that's unavoidable. I will also have to manage up to 400
IPs. I may be able to pare that down a bit, and have some extensive
editing of configuration files - I may have to call on sed to do the
legwork on that config file (it was originally built by a script for the
most part). ;)
However. I am open to this complex renumbering operation, if the
proposal results in a viable long term structure. I can certainly see
the routing advantages, the more I think about it. So, I'm
conditionally for this proposal - the condition is that it's done
properly. I am one who wants both Internet and Intranet connectivity.
--
73 de Tony VK3JED/VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com