22 Feb
2012
22 Feb
'12
11:45 p.m.
Greetings,
On Wed, 22 Feb 2012, Brian Kantor wrote:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:19:31 -0800, David Josephson
WA6NMF <wa6nmf(a)josephson.com> wrote:
Michigan was assigned 44.102/16 and shortly after that we had a group
of interested parties get together and define a state "plan". It went
something like this...
Michigan has 83 counties, however the Upper Penninsula had already been
claimed by Wisconsin as part of their coordination region. We then
determined how many licensed Hams there were in each county - this gave us
some idea just how much or little AMPRnet activity to expect in each
county. We then assigned anywhere from TWO to EIGHT /24 subnets to each
county based on their Ham populations.
For example: Wayne county (LOTS of Hams!) received 8 subnets
44.102.48/24 through 44.102.55/24
Mason county (very few Hams) recieved 2 subnets
44.102.146/24 and 44.102.147/24
This assured a better "distribution" of the IP address space.
Jeff King WB8WKA was the Michigan IP Address coordinator at that time.
Later I took over (Jay Nugent WB8TKL) the reines when Jeff moved on to
other interests.
The following is a JPG image of the map I wrote up back in 1992. The
numbers listed on each county defines the range of the 3rd octets for that
county's subnets:
http://www.mi-drg.org/AMPR-subnets-by-county.jpg
This plan continues to work to this day! We have had situations where
one Gateway/Hamgate supported routes for multiple counties. And we have
had multiple Gateways/Hamgates within one county with each agreeing to
route one or more subnets - but never do BOTH Hamgates route the SAME
subnet. Users could get an IP address for EACH gateway and choose which
would be their default route.
We have assigned entire subnets and or blocks/ranges of addresses to
groups or individuals for their own experimentation.
We also promote that each county operate on their own frequency to
avoid the "Hidden Transmitter" problems. We also reccommend that subnets
exist on their own frequencies as well.
There are currently 277 route entires in todays ENCAP.TXT route table.
With 49 of those being Michigan /24 (a couple are /23 or /22) subnets used
in our counties. We make up about 17% of the total ENCAP route table.
Perhaps that is a sign as to our level of activity? I can only hope...
Enjoy!
--- Jay Nugent WB8TKL
o Chair, ARRL Michigan Section "Digital Radio Group" (DRG)
[ www.MI-DRG.org ]
o Michigan AMPRnet IP Address Coordinator
[ http://www.mi-drg.org/ip-addr-form.html ]
() ascii ribbon campaign in
/\ support of plain text e-mail
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Jay Nugent jjn(a)nuge.com (734)484-5105 (734)649-0850/Cell |
| Nugent Telecommunications [www.nuge.com] |
| Internet Consulting/Linux SysAdmin/Engineering & Design/ISP Reseller |
| ISP Monitoring [www.ispmonitor.org] ISP & Modem Performance Monitoring |
| Web-Pegasus [www.webpegasus.com] Web Hosting/DNS Hosting/Shell Accts|
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
23:01:01 up 171 days, 5:39, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.02, 0.00
I am puzzled that we want to assign 44-net
addresses one by one as shown
in amprhosts rather than as subnets. Perhaps there is a historical
reason for that. The routing table could get to be very large (we can hope!)
Subnetting is reasonable to do but we still have to assign addresses in
those subnets one at a time in order to get DNS entries for them and to
enable them in the Internet ingress filter.
The division of the AMPRNet space into the existing blocks of addresses
was primarily for administrative convenience, not as a mandated subnetting
scheme.
Subnets should probably track routers/gateways; that is, each
router/gateway should have a small subnet associated with it. That would
help to keep the routing table at a reasonable size. Since routers often
serve a specific geographical area, having regional subnets could be a fairly
good way to assign addresses.
The hard question is what size region and what size subnet?
The implication is that there will be a router for each region, which is
what we've been doing in many places anyway. Perhaps major cities is a
reasonable way to divide an area into subnets. But there are also flat
networks which need only one router even though they span multiple cities.
Ideas? 