Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!tcp-ip
From: martin%blade@MOUTON.ARPA (Martin J Levy)
Newsgroups: mod.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re:  Gateway Slots
Message-ID: <8512141645.AA29480@blade.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 14-Dec-85 11:45:35 EST
Article-I.D.: blade.8512141645.AA29480
Posted: Sat Dec 14 11:45:35 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 14-Dec-85 16:35:46 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 21
Approved: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa

as an extra note to the one about TAC terminal connections and gateways
connections being respectively both hard and easy, i would also like to
ask the question:

"why are core gateways still 11/03's and not 11/23's or even 73's?"

in these days, with the reduced cost of these processors and memory,
and even with the software knowledge of how to program the memory
mapping registers of these processors why is there still a restriction
on the numbers of network numbers that can be held in the gateways
memory. if i remember correct the C-GATE and the BRL gateways both use
memory mapped code.

please don't take this as a vote against subnetting, but more of a note
that is worried about what will happen later, what the number of
networks goes up. the subnet solution will help big sites (like us),
but not with lots of small sites, where one cable is all they have
anyway.

martin levy.
bellcore, nj.