Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!bionet!agate!shelby!portia!Jessica!morgan From: morgan@Jessica.stanford.edu (RL "Bob" Morgan) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: Naive questions about subnets & domains Message-ID: <4699@portia.Stanford.EDU> Date: 22 Aug 89 02:24:01 GMT References: <1072@adobe.UUCP> <164@jove.dec.com> Sender: USENET News System Reply-To: morgan@Jessica.UUCP (RL "Bob" Morgan) Organization: Stanford University Lines: 37 >Another way to phrase this question is: was it the intention of the subnet >scheme that subnets must be geographically close or only topologically "close" >for routing purposes? If they must be topologically close, am I better off > 1) using subnets for remote networks and limiting my connections > in the future >or 2) getting distinct network numbers to leave me flexibility in the > future This problem is a rather deep one, I think, that many institutions will have to struggle through in the near future. I have been somewhat involved with the case of a local university that is in much the same boat. The computer science dept is very anxious to get connected, and wants to lease a T1 line right away to the nearby connection point of the local NSFNET-sponsored regional network. The computer center, however, is much happier to wait for the statewide university system, which has an existing 56Kbps network, to start supporting IP, connect to the Internet in one place, and eventually upgrade the campus to T1. The question, to paraphrase the quote above, is the relative importance of geographical versus institutional "closeness." The issues in this case have more to do with the cost of long-distance T1 circuits, funding timelines, and the quality of central support than the technical details of IP address structure. The choices that individual institutions make will determine the structure of the Internet for years to come, and the nature of the technical problems (like enormous routing tables) that have to be solved. The domain name system (one might note) reflects the same split. Most domains are now organized by institutional type (.edu, .gov) but the use of geographical domains (.us, .au) is increasing, it seems. Maybe someday we'll be "stanford.ca.us." - RL "Bob" Morgan Networking Systems Stanford