Xref: utzoo comp.dcom.lans:1320 comp.protocols.tcp-ip:3399
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!im4u!halley!bc
From: bc@halley.UUCP (Bill Crews)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans,comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Subnetting
Message-ID: <358@halley.UUCP>
Date: 6 May 88 15:33:53 GMT
References: <1607@erix.UUCP>
Reply-To: bc@halley.UUCP (Bill Crews)
Organization: Tandem Computers, Austin, TX
Lines: 19

In article <1607@erix.UUCP> per@erix.ericsson.se (Per Hedeland) writes:
>
>Typically there are 5-10 clients in each group. There are currently some 20
>such groups, but predictions are for hundreds in the not too distant future,
>i.e. considering other connected equipment, far more than 256 addresses are
>required for the backbone.

>                                                   It seems to be a terrible
>waste of adress space to use a separate class C number for each of the client
>groups, so we figured that subnetting would be appropriate,

It does to me, too.  So, why not just use class B addresses?  Based on the
criteria you dictate, that would seem to be adequate for now and the future.

-bc
-- 
Bill Crews                                   Tandem Computers
bc@halley.UUCP                               Austin, Texas
..!rutgers!im4u!halley!bc                    (512) 244-8350