25 Feb
2012
25 Feb
'12
4:30 p.m.
This might be a good time to implement a rwhoisd server for the whole
44/8 network. This way for the people who want to register a block of any size
we can have an easily accessible and viewable whois entries. Also anyone,
anywhere can find out what is assigned to who regardless of it's block size and
regardless if there are DNS entries or not. Then it would fall back to the
regional coordinator if no entries were made for the query being checked, and
then back to the top parent of Brian for 44/8 of no coordinator assigned. This
is a proven method as ARIN has been using this for years on their whois server.
Works very well.
Assuming that if 44.X.X.0 is assigned something in DNS that it's broken
into a /24 I believe is not a good idea as it might actually be a smaller or
larger subnetmask. /24 can be very wasteful if you're not using most of it. I
would say it would be more common to hand out /27's or /26's.
This would also lend it's self nicely into IPv6, since that is
supported as well if we get space.
Tim Osburn
www.osburn.com
206.812.6214
W7RSZ
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012, Brian Kantor wrote:
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 10:13:48 -0800
From: Brian Kantor <Brian(a)ucsd.edu>
Reply-To: AMPRNet working group <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu>
To: AMPRNet working group <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu>
Subject: Re: [44net] On the Issue of Subnets
So it seems to me that we have two classes of people requesting address
allocations from their local coordinators:
1. those who are planning to operate a regional router (radio- or
tunnel-based gateway)
2. those who are planning to use an existing router.
How should we handle these?
It's apparent that some scheme like Geoff's for allocating a subnet block to
the first group is wise. It's probably not necessary to actually register
the network (0'th) address nor the broadcast (all-ones) in the DNS but
they're still part of the allocation. Still, the entire block (a /24 in
Geoff's scheme) should be reserved by the coordinator for that router
operator.
Do we (for a /24) enter 254 addresses into the DNS every time we register a
router block? I don't think that's necessary, although we've done it for a
select few blocks.
At our current level of usage, perhaps it's enough to register only the first
4 or 8 or 16 addresses in the block so that experiments can begin, and
register more as activity grows.
In effect, this makes each router/gateway operator a delegated coordinator
for his subnet block, as all further allocation from his block has to be
coordinated with him.
Is this getting too complicated?
Ideas?
- Brian
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net