Ralph Hyre (firstname.lastname@example.org)
5 Nov 88 15:08:56 GMT
In article <8811012316.aa00563@SEM.BRL.MIL> reschly@BRL.MIL ("Robert J. Reschly Jr.") writes:
> There is a good reason for arguing against a cluster of class B (or C)
>addresses over one A (or B). When one is in a situation where there is
>one portal (or just a few portals) into a cluster of networks, and those
>networks are richly interconnected, then subnetting is a win.
For AMPRNET (Amateur Packet Radio Net, #44), some are questioning whether
getting a class A address was the best thing at this early development stage.
Having a class A address makes internetworking Harder in our case, since
a network is assumed to be fully connected internally.
AMPRNET is not, and probably will not be for the next few years.
So my gripe isn't with the size of networks as much as the (presumed) model and
the various implementations of it. I'd rather glue things together with smart
AMPRnet<->Internet gateways (I believe that they should be the only machines
with the burden of keeping detailed routing information for AMPRnet.)
-- - Ralph W. Hyre, Jr. Internet: email@example.com Phone:(412) CMU-BUGS Amateur Packet Radio: Amateur Packet Radio: N3FGW@W2XO, or c/o W3VC, CMU Radio Club, Pittsburgh, PA "You can do what you want with my computer, but leave me alone!8-)"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:43:58 GMT