Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!pyrdc!pyrnj!rutgers!ucla-cs!admin.cognet.ucla.edu!casey
From: casey@admin.cognet.ucla.edu (Casey Leedom)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Subnet questions.
Summary: Assigning IP addrs in subnet-like fashion for unsubnetted site
Keywords: Subnets
Message-ID: <16533@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>
Date: 5 Oct 88 18:48:58 GMT
References: <8810031020.AA02610@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Sender: news@CS.UCLA.EDU
Reply-To: casey@cs.ucla.edu (Casey Leedom)
Organization: UCLA
Lines: 17

In article <8810031020.AA02610@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> RACKLEY@MSSTATE.BITNET
 (Mike Rackley) writes:
> 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?

  The suggestion that you assign your IP addresses in a ``subnet-like''
fashion was probably made to make switching over to subnets in the future
easier.  It doesn't hurt you to assign your addresses in a subnet-like
fashion - say by building or other organizational or geographic
assignment - and it makes dividing the administration of your net (ala
BIND subdomains for instance) and monitoring your net easier.  We
assigned buildings unique third byte IP addresses at Lawrence Livermore
National Lab for just those reasons even though LLNL isn't subnetted.

  I'd take the suggestion if I were you.

Casey