I would be interested too. The project at the moment is to set up essentially an on-demand WISP for disaster response on 3.5 GHz to serve the Monterey Bay area. We will be colocating with one of the significant ISPs here that has a high level site (I do microwave consulting for them, they give me rack space and bandwidth.) We will eventually want a fairly large DHCP pool for use in emergencies. The radios are readily available. I specifically don't want to use NAT'ted private address space because it should be clear that the network is only for traffic that can be handled under the amateur radio rules. There will probably be a trickle of everyday traffic too, remote receivers, linking, etc.
Perhaps we can designate some of the unused /24s for subnetted nodes and leave the existing ones for individual IPs.
WA6NMF
On 2/22/12 6:54 PM, Daniel Curry wrote:
Geoff, Would you mind sending a copy of your paper to the group?
K6DLC
On 2/22/2012 6:47 PM, Geoff Joy wrote:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:19:31 -0800, David Josephson WA6NMF wa6nmf@josephson.com wrote:
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!)
I think the reason we started it that way was the sparse population of addresses and the fact we coordinators didn't initially know any better coupled with the geographical/topological distribution of IP nodes where we couldn't really count on a node being in any specific location within the net. Nodes had to determine their neighbors by discovery and they were routed manually.
I didn't start subnetting until users wanted blocks of IP addresses for specific purposes, like UHF vs VHF gateways, digipeaters, or ARES/RACES. I wrote a paper on it but I don't know how widely it was distributed or how well it was received.
44Net mailing list 44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net