Xref: utzoo comp.dcom.lans:1330 comp.protocols.tcp-ip:3413
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!acornrc!tekbspa!joe
From: joe@tekbspa.UUCP (Joe Angelo)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans,comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Subnetting
Message-ID: <203@tekbspa.UUCP>
Date: 8 May 88 19:12:51 GMT
References: <358@halley.UUCP>
Organization: Teknekron Software Systems, San Jose, CA.
Lines: 23

in article <358@halley.UUCP>, bc@halley.UUCP (Bill Crews) says:
> Xref: tekbspa comp.dcom.lans:150 comp.protocols.tcp-ip:495
> 
> 
> 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.
> 

Now, the classes of IP addresses is simple enough to understand --

But what about subnetting? When does one want to *really* use
two IP network address on the same cable? And what performance
advantages does this give you? Were does the netmask come it at?
Is subnetting just a nice admistrativia thing? Or does your local
enet board not receive the packets, period? Or is it the high
level software that ignores the packet? Does anything really ignore
anything? 

-- 
"I'm trying             Joe Angelo -- Senior Systems Engineer/Systems Manager
 to think               at Teknekron Software Systems, Palo Alto 415-325-1025
 but nothing
 happens!"              uunet!tekbspa!joe -OR- tekbspa!joe@uunet.uu.net