Xref: utzoo comp.dcom.lans:1428 comp.protocols.tcp-ip:3708 Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!tness7!killer!pollux!dalsqnt!uunet!mcvax!enea!erix!per From: per@erix.UUCP (Per Hedeland) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans,comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: Subnetting Message-ID: <1624@erix.UUCP> Date: 1 Jun 88 06:54:36 GMT References: <1607@erix.UUCP> Reply-To: per@erix.ericsson.se (Per Hedeland) Organization: Ericsson Telecom, Stockholm, Sweden Lines: 26 While it may be a bit late, I thought I should post a short summary of the information I got in response to my query a few weeks back - it did generate some discussion, after all. If you recall, the issue was how to use subnetting on a network structure with a big backbone net and many small ones hanging off of it. I think the below is the essence of what I found out; I also have a pile of mail for those particularly interested. - Unequal-sized subnets, whether or not a Good Thing, is not currently implemented in any generally accepted way (and thus of little interest to us). - Partitioned subnets (i.e. subnets of a given net interconnected only by some other net) are out. - One can have several logical subnets on the same wire (i.e. the backbone in our case), thus effectively increasing the address space, at the expense of some manual "routing" (i.e. gateways have to be explicitly told that the different subnets can be accessed via the same interface - hosts on such a wire can be "fooled" into believing that it's all one (bigger) subnet). We will probably go for the latter method, with a long-term goal of splitting our backbone by using dedicated routers. Thanks to all who offered help and advice! ---Per Hedeland