This also provides an opportunity for peer review in cases of misguided allocation schemes (such as breaking up a state block by county).
Tom
Tom.
Can you validate why using a county scheme is misguided?
---------- Wm Lewis (KG6BAJ) AMPR Net IP Address Coordinator - Northern and Central California Regions (A 100% Volunteer Group) ______________________________________________
---------- This message is for the designated recipient only and MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any other use of this E-mail is prohibited.
On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 3:25 PM, William Lewis wlewis@myhostingsource.com wrote:
Can you validate why using a county scheme is misguided?
For example, in HamWAN we have a high site that provides direct 44net access to four counties. This site is linked to other sites that also provide coverage to multiple counties, often overlapping. When designing the sites' coverage, we made no attempt to limit it to particular counties. Any allocation by county would not match the needs of this IP network.
To build this large logical network, we started with a /20 allocation. Had our region been divided evenly by county before we requested this allocation, there would not have been a large enough block remaining to assign!
I have seen an instance where a 44net region was subdivided into counties, most with no users. Those counties that had users often had only one or two, so there were many small allocations scattered around the region's /16. A request for a new large network came in and the coordinator had to reject it because he had left no contiguous space large enough for this network. This was poor planning. (I've intentionally left out the region's name to avoid embarrassing the coordinator.)
Political boundaries rarely match network boundaries.
Tom KD7LXL
It was done that way here in Michigan. Each county was broken into smaller subnets from the larger /16 subnet. If all you are worrying about is small home sites that only go a few miles and want to make the subnets semi-human readable it can make since for some. However it’s not an efficient use of the space. When our group (Mi6WAN) went to get it’s first /19 there was no space left in the Michigan /16 to get us a contiguous block. You have /32-/24’s all over the place. Heck looking at 44.102/16 and it’s still like that. The coordinator went and requested another /16 for Michigan just to handle our request and our other requests. We have added another /21 and /24. 44.103/16 is being issued by subnet request and not county location in Michigan.
We have 38+ sites online right now and with the grant that we got 7 more PTP sites with 5 of those having PTMP sectors for use..
-- Fredric Moses - W8FSM - WQOG498 fred@moses.bz
On Feb 19, 2017, at 18:25, William Lewis wlewis@myhostingsource.com wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________
This also provides an opportunity for peer review in cases of misguided allocation schemes (such as breaking up a state block by county).
Tom
Tom.
Can you validate why using a county scheme is misguided?
-
Fredric Moses -
Tom Hayward -
William Lewis