[WLANtalk] [ICVPN] IPv4 allocation policy

Ranlvor ranlvor at no-dkim.starletp9.de
Di Okt 27 16:00:30 CET 2015


we currently lack documentation of our ICVPN-IPv4-Allocation-Policy.
That has caused frustration in the past so I'd like to add documentation
of our policy to ICVPN-Metas README file. Using discussions on #icvpn
(Hackint) and icvpn at lists.funkfeuer.at I gathered information about the
current policy and put them into a pull-request for icvpn-meta.


Should we merge this PullRequest in the current state or not?
Should I change anything?

Current state of the PullRequest:

Notes on IPv4 allocations

* There is only a limited amount of usuable IPv4 space available.
* 10/8 is used for connections between community networks across the
* Previously, people just took a /16, which means space is exhausted
  after 255 communites picked a network.
* Thus: think before you allocate a v4 network here: do you really
  *need* IPv4 connectivity between your and other Freifunk networks? If
  not, consider to use IPs from or
  internally and do NOT announce them to ICVPN.
* If you think you do, please be conservative; rule of thumb: Meshes
  might not size well beyond 2000 concurrent users, double that for
  decent DHCP timings => a /20 (4k IPs) per Mesh sounds reasonable. For
  additional systems outside the Mesh, an additional /22 (1024 IPv4
  addresses) might be sufficient.
* If you use mostly routing (OLSR), things might look different, you
  might look into e. g. an /21 to distribute to clients and another /22
  for p2p-links if needed.
* Again, please plan ahead, than take your pick. Be prepared to be
  questioned on why, if you took e. g. more than /18 directly. But
  remember as well, that renumbering IS a pain.
* If you need more than a /18 in one community or city you need a
  _very_ good explaination, why you do need it.
* Minimum net size is /22, round up if you need less.


On 26.10.2015 16:48, Ranlvor wrote:
> Ohai,
> I took the feedpack and created a PullRequest for the new policy.
> https://github.com/freifunk/icvpn-meta/pull/273/files
> Should we merge this or not?
> Greetings
> Ranlvor
> Am 23.10.2015 um 15:11 schrieb Ranlvor:
>> Ohai,
>> as pointed out by adorfer we currently lack documentation of our IPv4
>> allocation policy. So I'd like to add a few lines to the icvpn-meta
>> README and I'd like to start a discussion what lines that could be. The
>> policy would only apply to new pull-requests, not to existing allocations.
>> My current draft:
>> IPv4 allocation policy
>> ----------------------
>> * Please allocate small nets. IPv4 has limited space.
>> * Minimum net size: /22
>> * If you have less then 1.000 online clients, you will not get more than
>> one /18 (16.384 adresses) per city or per community, whatever is less
>> Any ideas? Comments? Opinions?
>> Greetings
>> Ranlvor

-------------- nächster Teil --------------
Ein Dateianhang mit Binärdaten wurde abgetrennt...
Dateiname   : signature.asc
Dateityp    : application/pgp-signature
Dateigröße  : 901 bytes
Beschreibung: OpenPGP digital signature
URL         : <http://lists.freifunk.net/pipermail/wlantalk-freifunk.net/attachments/20151027/5639b8f0/attachment.sig>

Mehr Informationen über die Mailingliste WLANtalk