Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!NSIPO.NASA.GOV!medin
From: medin@NSIPO.NASA.GOV ("Milo S. Medin", NASA ARC NSI Project Office)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: An INTERESTING problem
Message-ID: <9101122308.AA08769@cincsac.arc.nasa.gov>
Date: 12 Jan 91 23:08:39 GMT
References: <9101101835.AA24211@gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 15


Mike, I disagree that #2 is risky (using variable length subnets).  Vendors
running OSPF have to implement variable length mask support, and since
Proteon, 3com, Wellfleet and ACC also have demonstrated OSPF interoperability
recently, with cisco committing to have it by Q2 1991, I fail to see how
this restricts your choice of vendors in any significant way!

Also note, that of the system is running OSPF, subnets no longer need to
be contiguous.  This works fine (we have done this here at Ames).  Time
moves on and progress is made.  People can take advantage of the new
technology.  We don't still eat with stone knives and forks.  Let's try and
avoid the use of their equivalents in routing technology.

						Thanks,
						   Milo