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