Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!csn!boulder!recnews
From: rexm@lookout.uswest.com (Rex Mammel)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.sys.cisco
Subject: Re: subnet masks
Message-ID: <9106192245.AA10666@lookout.uswest.com>
Date: 19 Jun 91 22:45:16 GMT
Sender: news@colorado.edu
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Lines: 13
Return-Path: <rexm@lookout.uswest.com>

I agree that the address space savings is valuable.
The biggest problem we seem to be facing is a large (15000)
population of users/ casual administrators who don't have the 
understanding to set masks according to specifications or 
to reserve subnet broadcast addresses/ subnet 0 addresses 
(ie. not give them out as node numbers.)

Perhaps the best solution is to depend on the router for all
subnetting and arping, and set every host at class b mask.

But there still seems to be some problem with yellow pages,
greping for subnets and having to explain the scheme to 
our users.  A modest cost for efficiency, I hope.