[ale] Looking for advise on domain names and other info wrt local network.

[Michael H. Warfield]

On Sun, 2008-08-10 at 10:22 -0400, Michael B. Trausch wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-08-10 at 07:30 -0400, Jim Lynch wrote:
> > So what's a good solution for this problem?

> Personally, I am waiting for IPv6 so that I can give my network machines
> a proper configuration.

IPv4 routing table:
Routes:		244423
Blocks:		125126
Addresses:	1785542913

IPv6 routine table:
Total networks: 6487471868
Total routes:   1236

(Ok...  This is cheating, a little bit, since there is one IPv6
advertisement that is a /16 and would contain more IPv6 networks than
all the individual addresses in IPv4 space totalled.  Even still,
subtracting off 4294967296, you still get more routable IPv6 /48
networks than routable IPv4 addresses).

> The way I'd like to do it is to have each of our machines have email
> delivery to it, so that I can have local mail-spools where mail actually
> just gets pushed to my machine when someone else sends email in.  When I
> send email out, I'd like it to be from <my user account>@<my machine
> name> and so forth.  I'd like to also be able to host my own services
> this way, so that I can, for example, work on some software and keep a
> bzr branch on my system and have it accessible to people that are
> interested in the branch(es) I am working on without having to go to the
> extra effort of pushing those branches somewhere publicly accessible to
> simply get around the fact that I don't have enough IP address space to
> go 'round on my network.

> The only real problem is that people are kind of freaking out over IPv6
> at the moment and trying to introduce some sort of NAT for it.  This
> disturbs me a little bit because the Internet was never meant to be
> NAT'ed left and right.  It was designed to be a large collection of
> machines that are able to communicate with each other.  If NAT is
> successfully introduced into IPv6, then ISPs will have little incentive
> to give people a routable subnet and then we'll just be stuck with the
> same ugly mess as we're in today... that is, having to have non-routable
> networks hidden behind a single address, which is really annoying.

	NAT is being proposed for IPv6 in the IETF as a v4 <-> v6 transition
mechanism.  It's not being proposed for the same purposes as v4 NAT.
There are plenty of free IPv6 /48 networks to pass around.  The ISP's
will have no excuse.

> So, for the moment, I am using Google's email services for my domain,
> and my network uses the TLD "spicerack".  Eventually, I'd like to just
> use my domain name for the domain name on this network and have all my
> network services run locally on machines here.

> 	--- Mike

	Mike
-- 
Michael H. Warfield (AI4NB) | (770) 985-6132 |  mhw at WittsEnd.com
   /\/\|=mhw=|\/\/          | (678) 463-0932 |  http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/
   NIC whois: MHW9          | An optimist believes we live in the best of all
 PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471        | possible worlds.  A pessimist is sure of it!

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20080811/50df5164/attachment-0001.bin