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@ucsd.edu Reply-To: AMPRNet working group 44net@hamradio.ucsd.edu To: AMPRNet working group 44net@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:
- those who are planning to operate a regional router (radio- or
tunnel-based gateway)
- 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@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net