Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!purdue!decwrl!ucbvax!BRL.MIL!reschly
From: reschly@BRL.MIL ("Robert J. Reschly Jr.")
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: is there a need for class A addresses?
Message-ID: <8811012316.aa00563@SEM.BRL.MIL>
Date: 2 Nov 88 04:16:31 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 25


      Barry,

   There is a good reason for arguing against a cluster of class B (or C)
addresses over one A (or B).  When one is in a situation where there is
one portal (or just a few portals) into a cluster of networks, and those
networks are richly interconnected, then subnetting is a win.  For
networks outside the portal, only the underlying network needs to be
known to make routing decisions.  With clusters of non-subnetted networks,
each network needs to be known outside the portal.  Adding one address
to the routing mess is vastly preferrable to adding many.

				Later,
				    Bob 
   --------
Phone:  (301)278-6678   AV: 298-6678    FTS: 939-6678
Arpa:   reschly@BRL.MIL (or BRL.ARPA)   UUCP: ...!brl-smoke!reschly
Postal: Robert J. Reschly Jr.
        Advanced Computer Systems Team
        Systems Engineering and Concepts Analysis Division
        U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory
        ATTN: SLCBR-SE  (Reschly)
        APG, MD  21005-5066             (Hey, *I* don't make 'em up!)

****  For a good time, call: (303) 499-7111.   Seriously!  ****