Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!decwrl!mogul
From: mogul@decwrl.dec.com (Jeffrey Mogul)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Broadcasting Adreess and Subnets
Message-ID: <379@jove.dec.com>
Date: 13 Apr 90 00:58:22 GMT
References: <9003270339.AA02962@WLV.IMSD.CONTEL.COM> <9003262150.AA14999@asylum.sf.ca.us> <362@jove.dec.com> <16240@smunews.UUCP>
Organization: DEC Western Research
Lines: 13

In article <16240@smunews.UUCP> merlin@csvax.seas.smu.edu (David Hayes) writes:
>In article <362@jove.dec.com> mogul@decwrl.dec.com (Jeffrey Mogul)
>writes:
>>Since I wrote RFC922, I've had a change of heart; I agree that multi-
>>subnet broadcasts are a bad idea.
>
>I'm working on a printer accounting program that runs throughout
>our (subnetted) campus network.  It uses a client-server
>architecture.  There are multiple, redundant servers.  I wanted
>our system to be able to find the servers by broadcast [...]

Well, I'm still against multi-subnet broadcasts; you should lean
on your vendors to support the Internet Group Multicast Protocol (RFC1112).