.64-.127 wired internal access 255.255.255.192 subnet
.65 gateway (FTP server, my PCs on the lan etc)
.128-.255 - /30s and routed subnets (/30's top down, subnets bottom up)
no standard gateway as its for interfaces etc.
I think maybe standarrdise on the public DHCP range, and let everyone decide on the rest themselves.
The plan on the standards proposal appears to operate the /24 as a whole /24, where there are people using the same range for wired machines, it means all the broadcast gibberish from the wired lan will cross over to the other, which if there are windows boxes will be quite a bit.
There was also the proposal for a /30 for each user with each having there own interface to allow greater rate limiting. This is one that would be woth looking into but how to DHCP that is something I have no idea how it would be done.
I do think that it should be required that anyone running a link to another AP node be required to use a /30 for the purpose rather then the generic pool for dhcp/static users, even if it is just a secondary IP on the same interface and radio so that we can standardise the reverse lookups to something like my end having richms-linx-link.richms.nzwireless and the other end as linx-richms-link.richms.nzwireless - the trailing part of the name being whose /24 they came out ot, this will make traderoutes easier to follow.
Channel use shouldnt be restricted to those 3, I have had ch 2 and 5 in use here both on 802.11g without any reduction in thruput. I had and AP in the server closet on 2, a client in the shed on 2, plugged into an AP on 5 to a client on the roof, overall thruput was in the order of 15-16 megabit untill I tried ch 2 and 4, where it turned to crap. There was about 7-8 metres between the radios in the shed however. Channels are limited, and using only 3 will reduce the number of links that people can put in.
SSID, I think we can recommend, but not require that people use those, The SSID is soemthing that people can find on nodedb when they look. The geographic area is largly irrelevent too, since I dont think I would ever be picking up people from 2 areas, by all means keep it for the DNS, but nice short SSIDs would be easier for all I think. The idea of it being an easily recognisable URL with info on the AP is a good one however, [/b]
Nice work Trvln, however I do agree with richms that shorter SSIDs are better, maybe along the lines of nodeid.nzwireless
Overlapping channels are only going to be an issue if each cell is within radiating distance of each other, if they are then using the channels furthest away from each other is a good idea, in high density situations 1, 6 and 11 make the best choices. If there are a number of APs within close proximity (RF wise) then its a matter of managing the radiation and power output.
A good tip on improving PtP links (and minimising their effect through the space which they transit) is to reverse the polarity of the antennae (turn em upside down).
My suggestions in addition to the above are:
- Have a registry of IP address allocations & a person/working group responsible for overseeing allocations and implementation.
- Filtering of seleted ports at the router (137,445, 1080 etc)
- Having a very good reason why you want a static IP (providing services etc)
Overlapping channels are only going to be an issue if each cell is within radiating distance of each other, if they are then using the channels furthest away from each other is a good idea, in high density situations 1, 6 and 11 make the best choices. If there are a number of APs within close proximity (RF wise) then its a matter of managing the radiation and power output.
The closer the channels are to each other, the higher the amount of noise one will see from the other. With directional high gain antennas it should be possible to even use the same channel on point to point links over very short distances where the free space loss between the 2 and the antenna gains is an order of magnatude less then the loss between the 2 antennas with no gain as they are not pointing.
I wouldnt want to try that over more then about 500m-1k however.
Over 1 k with 2 19dB parabolics you can get a recieve strength of -40 - if you have 2 antennas with no gain you wouldnt see that much along a typical roof length. I cant even get that 10m from my AP across a room. In that case same channel would work just fine, because the one you want is so much stronger then the other one that you dont want.
There will be issues with the remote sites seeing both antennas, one 19dB or so less then the other depending on what lobe its getting from it, but throw in polarity as well and you will easily have enough to get 2 links on the same channel.
Quote:
A good tip on improving PtP links (and minimising their effect through the space which they transit) is to reverse the polarity of the antennae (turn em upside down).
Turning upside down will give you the same polarity, you need to turn 90° to get the other polarity.
Quote:
My suggestions in addition to the above are:
- Have a registry of IP address allocations & a person/working group responsible for overseeing allocations and implementation.
Click IP subnets on the left
Quote:
- Filtering of seleted ports at the router (137,445, 1080 etc)
No, its already advised that people need there own firewall, and adding these in will just give people a false sense of security, anyone on the same physical AP will not be affected by these blocks. All it would do is stop cross AP spread of the next common worm.
Quote:
- Having a very good reason why you want a static IP (providing services etc)
Static IP means we always know who is who. I think most people should have statics, or at least a permanant DHCP record
The closer the channels are to each other, the higher the amount of noise one will see from the other. With directional high gain antennas it should be possible to even use the same channel on point to point links over very short distances where the free space loss between the 2 and the antenna gains is an order of magnatude less then the loss between the 2 antennas with no gain as they are not pointing.
...
My mistake on the polarity issue (its late), same excuse for not remembering the IP subnet page.
My comment on overlapping channels and cell size management was assuming PtMP links, for PtP your comments are right.
Quote:
No, its already advised that people need there own firewall, and adding these in will just give people a false sense of security, anyone on the same physical AP will not be affected by these blocks. All it would do is stop cross AP spread of the next common worm.
Isnt this the point, stopping the spread from AP to AP and containing the fallout from the worm?
Quote:
Static IP means we always know who is who. I think most people should have statics, or at least a permanant DHCP record
How is this going to be managed? Mapping IPs to MAC? Does this not open the issue of IP theft? Assignments would in effect be 'static' because the churn would be minimal (until a server restart)
Yeah, i'd like to be a nzwireless member, but if I am restricted to ssid name etc, then whose network is it? I have my third node going up this Sunday looking into the albany area. If i was to use this name convention, i'd have to go for street name rather than area or i'd be doubling up.
I like being able to note my own ssid, people can then type the address in IE or prefered browser and find out info on the AP.
If it were forced that we had to name our ap's with nzwireless.org , then i'd have to say that anyone on NZ wireless may use my AP's to make the extra hop over a hill or to another NZ wireless member. I'd just be the middle man like citylink providing the fiber and nzwireless providing the traffic.
I dont want to *****, but I do think that node operators should be able to name their network how they like
Linx and I are looking at getting a b class from nzwireless if possible. We have 3 nodes up, a local internal network on each point to join and plans for another 3 ap's to go up in the next couple of months.
The IP ranges for west and east would come out of central.
I want the clients to run on separate subnets so shaping can be used but I think a /29 would be better because it will allow people to have up to 6 machines without using NAT or getting their own subnet.
I like the idea of splitting it up to 255.255.255.192 segments.
Channel selection will depend on what is around you but 1 , 6 and 11 should be used if there is nothing around you. Once these are all used up then other channels/methods can be used to minimise interference.
I'd rather not reley on nodedb I think nzwireless should be in the SSID because it identifies the access point as being on the nzwireless network. I originally wanted to use a the operators email address as the SSID. My SSID at the moment is trvln@nzwireless.org. I agree that the region doesn't need to be in the SSID and like the name.nzwireless idea.
Static IP addresses are better on marginal links and are good for identification. Also the are needed for routing and shaping.
I don't think we need to filter ports at this stage and some people may want to use protocols that might be blocked if the ports get blocked.
Private node opprators will have a final say over who connects to their network. Just because you have nzwireless in your SSID doesn't mean that its a free for all.
Network Standards comments please 
Linear Mode
