Hey all. On Mon, 22 Jun 1998, Andy Linton wrote:
The idea of locally-unique address space certainly appeals but I don't believe it should come from the rfc 1918 space. That's *private* address space - Citylink isn't private.
That's for sure.
If we're going to start running a complex system on Citylink then someone will need to manage the address space, allocation of private AS numbers, DNS for the locally-unique address space etc. That looks to me like a set of services that should be provided by Citylink themselves.
Absolutely. To wit, I've had a prowl around the list of networks used by WCC, and all the spare /24's seem to be within superblocks - of the six /24's originally assigned to WCC, two are still in use, and they are the two that don't appear in supperblocks. Bummer :-). Therefore, Citylink need to get a hold of some address space from ISI. I've had a cursory look around the ISI website, and it wasn't obvious who to talk to, so if somebody can direct me in the right direction, I'll get things moving. Any feeling on the required address range? I think it's desirable to get a single numbering scheme going on Citylink (ie, all devices numbered out of a single IP range) independant of whatever exchanges get overlaid on top. This means we'd need ~70 numbers immediately, and the network is growing at the rate of 3-5 connections a week, so I'm thinking something like a /22 would be desirable? Does ISI do bigger blocks than /24's? Cheers Si --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog