NZwireless IP space.

NZwireless IP space

Aparently we don't have a proper IP space setup. So here is one that I am proposing.

I have split 10/8 into 10/12. This gives 16 1million host networks.

Feedback please.



10.0.0.1 > 10.15.254.254

10.16.1.1 > 10.31.254.254 Auckland

10.32.1.1 > 10.47.254.254

10.48.1.1 > 10.63.254.254

10.64.1.1 > 10.79.254.254 Wellington

10.80.1.1 > 10.95.254.254

10.96.1.1 > 10.111.254.254

10.112.1.1 > 10.127.254.254 Christchurch

below here unused for now.

10.128.1.1 > 10.143.254.254

10.144.1.1 > 10.159.254.254

10.160.1.1 > 10.175.254.254

10.176.1.1 > 10.191.254.254

10.192.1.1 > 10.207.254.254

10.208.1.1 > 10.223.254.254

10.224.1.1 > 10.239.254.254

10.240.1.1 > 10.254.254.254

Well after more chats on IRC we think 32 super nets are better. So thats

10.0.0.1 > 10.7.254.254

10.8.0.1 > 10.15.254.254

10.16.0.1 > 10.23.254.254 Auckland

10.24.0.1 > 10.31.254.254

10.32.0.1 > 10.39.254.254 Wellington

10.40.0.1 > 10.47.254.254

10.48.0.1 > 10.55.254.254 Christchurch

10.56.0.1 > 10.63.254.254

10.64.0.1 > 10.7.254.254


....and so on

and another day we need to argue about ranges inside the region for single ip users, and block owners
<jvanvelden> So Auckland is given 10.16.0.0 through 10.23.255.255.
<Trvln> no you can use it but I don't like it
<Trvln> I don't use 0 or 255
<jvanvelden> fair enough
<Trvln> the calc thing spat out 255's
<jvanvelden> subnet mask 255.248.0.0 (for any region)
<jvanvelden> Trvln: i can see where your coming from
<jvanvelden> would anyone disagree about auckland having 5 regions?
<jvanvelden> see http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_..._of_New_Zealand for information on goverment 'regions' for NZ
* cranz has quit IRC (Connection reset by peer)
<Trvln> no, we'd have to chop the /13 into smaller chunks
<jvanvelden> Trvln: no. no more subdivision can occur without serious problems
<jvanvelden> I would also like to propose that Auckland because of its size in relation to other cities/regions in NZ be considered 3 Regions for Networking purposes.
<jvanvelden> http://www.aucklandregion.com/resources/im...s/regionMap.gif
<jvanvelden> It is vastly more efficient to consider Auckland as 3 cities that subdivide one region further
<Trvln> how come we cant split a /13 more?
<jvanvelden> I propose North Auckland (Rodney District, North Shore City, Waitakere City) Auckland Central (Auckland City), South Auckland (Manukau City, Papakura District, Franklin District)
<jvanvelden> if we split a /13 more it makes routing more difficult
* MellowNZ has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving)
<jvanvelden> becides, Auckland has 1/3rd of the population of NZ, so it will need far more ips that other regions.
<jvanvelden> it makes the routing table make more sence. instead of a massive table, its 1/3rd of the size, and it knows that if the packet is destined for the other side of Auckland, it can just pass it to the gatewayserver.
<Trvln> ok I see what you mean
<Trvln> ok I'll copy paste into forum

10.0.0.1 > 10.7.254.254

10.8.0.1 > 10.15.254.254

10.16.0.1 > 10.23.254.254 Auckland North

10.24.0.1 > 10.31.254.254 Auckland Central

10.32.0.1 > 10.39.254.254 Auckland South

10.40.0.1 > 10.47.254.254

10.48.0.1 > 10.55.254.254 Wellington

10.56.0.1 > 10.63.254.254

10.64.0.1 > 10.7.254.254 Christchurch

OK we have been given NZ - 10.224.0.0/11 by Evilbunny to be part of the Ausie IP space.

After all our discussion on IRC and coming to a decision to use 10.0.0.0/13 (giving us 16 regions), evilbunny said that we should try and integrate our network with the Australian one. Apparently the Aussies have been kind enough to already have allocated us 10.224.0.0/11, which gives us 2,097,152 IP addresses to use.

The question now is, how do we then in turn subdivide these IP's?

For routing purposes we want to have New Zealand divided into geographical areas. This makes things much easier.
Also, an Wireless Access Point has a limit on the number of Clients that can be connected. This number is subject to much debate, but I think that 30 Clients is a reasonable maximum. Remember, if our Access Point is using DHCP then this is the maximum number of Clients connected at the same time. For Access Points wanting to support more than 30 connected Clients at the same time, then either multiple blocks of 32 have to be assigned, or some other alternative. Why not make blocks of 64 instead of 32? Because 80% of Access Points will not need more than 30, and we don't wish to waste the few IP's that we have.
(Note the difference between 30 and 32 is that we are assigning blocks of 32, but only end up with 30 usable IP's)

So, what do we end up with?

If we choose blocks of 32 for Access Points, this will allow us to have 65536 Access Points in the entire country. Each of these Access Points will have 30 IP addresses. ( This is a /21 )

If we choose instead blocks of 16 for Access Points, this will allow us to have 131072 Access Points in the entire country. Each of these Access Points will have 14 IP addresses. ( This is a /20 )

While 65535 may sound like more addresses than we will ever need, many will be wasted, and this solution will be a permanent one. In 2020 we may be needing more that 65535 addresses, but will be stuck.

I am certain that there are some flaws in the above logic. The numbers above are indicative only, not guaranteed.

There is also another factor, do we just forget about all this complicated IPv4 address space which is all a nasty hack at best, and just use IPv6. That would enable us to use real-world address space, instead of this 10.x.x.x nonsense which means we will never be able to communicate with anyone except the Aussies (and the real-world internet). IPv6 does bring a different set of problems, however.

Joel

I want to still use /24 for the nodes where we can. This will allow 30 subnets of 6 useable IP addresses to hang off one AP.

Commercial tech can do over 100 clients connected to one node using the same spectrum that we use.

Quesrtion: Why the fuss over being apart of the OZ Ip space? does somne have plans for the mother of all wifi links? i highly doubt NZ and OZ are going to be connected so i feel like we shouldnt worry about whats ip's OZ use. I'm all for using regions - but slightly bigger

As for how many ips we aggisn each node:

Alot of the aps will run some sort of firwall as it would be stupid not to - meaning we will ave a large group of single ip AP's no point wasting an entire /24 on them so i suggest we have a junk sebnet in each region for these ppl /24 should be reserved for those running networks that wont have any nat and will require and fill a /24 range

We made a decision for /24 ealier based on ease of use and future expansion. There is no need to make a compromise here, nothing has changed.

If we run out of IP I will personally pay for real world IP addresses

We would have to hit 8000 nodes+

I doubt that we could get more than 500 max in Auckland.

Perhaps i am getting confused between clients that will access the network only and small nodes that will extende the network aswell as use it

Clients should only get a single ip, unless they need more and that can be requested

Small nodes will be given a /24 subnet

Yes that is right.

Ok - i'll shutup and goto my un-informed couner :P

Just one thing - there is tlakin IRC about connection to the USA And Oz - Is this ever likly to happen? cos if it is we need a larger group from the other countryies to sit down and work it out - not just have Ozzies say " This is yours use it"

also a big issue of i[v4 or ipv6 for the core network

TOTAL SPACE

10.224.0.0 to 10.254.254.254

------------------------------------

10.224.0.1 > 10.227.254.254

10.228.0.1 > 10.231.254.254 Auckland North upto top of north island

10.232.0.1 > 10.235.254.254 Auckland Central

10.236.0.1 > 10.239.254.254 Auckland South

10.240.0.1 > 10.243.254.254 Auckland > Wellington (hamilton etc)

10.244.0.1 > 10.247.254.254 Wellington Region

10.248.0.1 > 10.251.254.254 South Island

10.252.0.1 > 10.254.254.254 Christchurch

The only reason I can think of to join aus is maybe we can get a cheap trans tasmain link. Other than that you might as well just use the internet.

So thats 8 regions each with 1000 access points excluding stub networks.

What is the maximum we could fit into Auckland?

If you chop Auckland up into 1000 square KMs, thats an AP for each sqaure KM.

Consider that I got a good connection to my AP from the hanger. The Hanger is 6km away, or covers and area of 36 square km. lets say that you might get say 10 AP's into that area in the future using all of 2.4 and 5Ghz spectrum.

Thats 1000/36 * 10 = 270 APs.

And there are 3 regions assigned to Auckland.

Seems to me that you are discussing IP Number allocation here, not core network design which has a lot more associated with it than just what IP ranges you are going to allocate to where.

There are a number of other things that will need consideration.

Who owns the network ?
Who manages the network ?
Who enforces management ?
How ?
What if a client decides they dont want to listen to you ?

and not forgetting such things as

What is the topology of the network ?
- how does it all interact ?

What is your target market ?
Where do you want to be in 2/3/4 years time ?

Address allocation should be quite far down the priority list, tho yes - it is good to keep track of what is currently in use - it should also be allocated with a mind that should renumbering need to occur it can happen quite quickly and easily.

This thread is just about what IP space we want to use. There is another thread about client rules in this section. We have discussed all of the above in various meetings and on the mail list and on this forum.

I think those questions are unanswered though still, or if they have been answered are not formally written down.

The first public node built from donated parts will be up in 2 weeks so hopefully we will get them answered by then. Up until now its been private networks like mine and its clear who owns mine and what can be done on it.

If you have any experience setting up a non profit organisation then noodles would be keen to hear from you.

Why not simply steal a couple of unused /8's?

Such as,

001/8
002/8
005/8
007/8
037/8

.... see http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space.

Pretty screwed if IANA decides to use them but.....

Now, I don't see why there's all this talk about joining to Auz - how exactly might we plan to do that???[/url]

Oops, that link is broken. Stupid fullstop...

http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space

My calculations work out the following at 5.8Ghz to cover 500 miles... (not sure how far oz is...

We would need

2 x 200W Radios
2 x 58Dbi Antenna's
2 x 30m towers (Freshnel Zone Clearance 24metres)

Gives Total EIRP of 82.878dBm or 194019427mWatts, wth a fade margin of 18dB.

Only problem will be the curvature of the earth

Just chuck some repeaters into the ocean between NZ and Aus

Aussie to NZ is approx 1000nm/1800km/1150miles.

Dont forget the curvature of the earth!!


Wookie

I know what would be AWESOME.

A 100% independant NZ-AUS cable, separate from the current one. Think cheap, fast internet for the select few that are friends of the cable owner. Which will be me .

I calculate that 1800KM of Cat6 cable from my supplier would be $150,000. But unfortunately the signal is lost long before 1800KM .

Do you have to use fibre or what?

You'd have to lay fibre, I know a guy who owns a company with survey and cabling ships, problem is even at cost it will need a ton of money....

But who the hell wants to cummunicate with the aussie's?????????

Too true... the South Island would be bad enough

Who powers the North Island ?

hrm, who will join me from the south for a quick roadtrip to Picton with a chainsaw and we'll stop off at the DC cable for a looky.

Dan

So what is the infrastructure between NZ and the rest of the net? Is there just a single set of fibres to Oz or is there a set to the US too? If, somehow, new fibre can be laid to link NZ to elsewhere I have supported fibre links between the UK and the US (Level(3)'s yellow submarine cable) and have experience with DWDM and various ADM's