Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncr-sd!hp-sdd!hplabs!ucbvax!MSSTATE.BITNET!RACKLEY
From: RACKLEY@MSSTATE.BITNET (Mike Rackley)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Subnet questions.
Message-ID: <8810031020.AA02610@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 2 Oct 88 14:21:13 GMT
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 17

BACKGROUND:
We are implementing a campus-wide network which will be a bridged
ethernet supporting TCP/IP.  The only router in the network is a P4200
which is our SURANET gateway.  We have a class B internet address, 130.18.
It was suggested that we assign our campus IP addresses in a "subnetted
fashion", even though we will not be using routers to physically subdivide
our network.  Typically, we will allocate one subnet per building, with a
MAC level bridge connecting each building to the backbone.

QUESTIONS:
Does the suggestion that we assign IP addresses in a "subnetted fashion"
imply that we should also assign a subnet mask of other than 255.255.0.0?
If we do this, it means that the gateway for most hosts on our campus net
will be on a different subnet than the host itself.  Is this legal?  Even
if it is legal, is this really what we want to do?  This would mean that all
intra-campus traffic between two different "pseudo-subnets" would have to
pass through the one P4200, even though normal ARP routing could be used.