Re: Subnetting


Bill Crews (halley!bc@cs.utexas.edu)
6 May 88 15:33:53 GMT


In article <In article <1607@erix.UUCP> per@erix.ericsson.se (Per Hedeland) writes:
>
>Typically there are 5-10 clients in each group. There are currently some 20
>such groups, but predictions are for hundreds in the not too distant future,
>i.e. considering other connected equipment, far more than 256 addresses are
>required for the backbone.

> It seems to be a terrible
>waste of adress space to use a separate class C number for each of the client
>groups, so we figured that subnetting would be appropriate,

It does to me, too. So, why not just use class B addresses? Based on the
criteria you dictate, that would seem to be adequate for now and the future.

-bc

--
Bill Crews				     Tandem Computers
bc@halley.UUCP				     Austin, Texas
..!rutgers!im4u!halley!bc		     (512) 244-8350



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:42:13 GMT