Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!ucbvax!CCD.BBN.COM!dpowles
From: dpowles@CCD.BBN.COM ("Drew M. Powles")
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: subnetting
Message-ID: <8710312025.AA25910@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Fri, 30-Oct-87 13:18:48 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8710312025.AA25910
Posted: Fri Oct 30 13:18:48 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 5-Nov-87 04:08:21 EST
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 21

We are doing a survey for a local client on IP implementations.  The
descriptions in the vendors guide don't really go into the detail
we're looking for in one respect: Subnetting support (ala RFC 950).  I
realize that both RFC 1011 and RFC 1009 require subnetting be
supported, but I have run into many folks in the 'biz that insist most
vendors do not implement nor plan to implement subnetting support.
For instance, does the Wollongong software implement RFC 950?  What
about Berkeley, or AT&Ts 3B TCP/IP?  What about the gateway vendors
(of course I know about BBN's) such as cisco Systems?  I do note the
Fuzzballs support it; the fuzzball description was one of the few that
called out subnetting specifically.  How about the interface and
front-end vendors like ACC?

Any and all help would certainly be appreciated.  You can send
directly to me, dpowles@bbn.com and I'll summarize to the community if
you'd like.

thanks!
Drew Powles
Columbia Professional Services
BBN Communications