Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!bbn!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!ius3.ius.cs.cmu.edu!ralphw
From: ralphw@ius3.ius.cs.cmu.edu (Ralph Hyre)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: is there a need for class A addresses?
Message-ID: <3492@pt.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: 5 Nov 88 15:08:56 GMT
References: <8811012316.aa00563@SEM.BRL.MIL>
Sender: netnews@pt.cs.cmu.edu
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 25

In article <8811012316.aa00563@SEM.BRL.MIL> reschly@BRL.MIL ("Robert J. Reschly Jr.") writes:
>
>      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 AMPRNET (Amateur Packet Radio Net, #44), some are questioning whether 
getting a class A address was the best thing at this early development stage.
Having a class A address makes internetworking Harder in our case, since
a network is assumed to be fully connected internally.

AMPRNET is not, and probably will not be for the next few years.

So my gripe isn't with the size of networks as much as the (presumed) model and
the various implementations of it. I'd rather glue things together with smart 
AMPRnet<->Internet gateways (I believe that they should be the only machines 
with the burden of keeping detailed routing information for AMPRnet.)

-- 
					- Ralph W. Hyre, Jr.
Internet: ralphw@ius3.cs.cmu.edu    Phone:(412) CMU-BUGS
Amateur Packet Radio: N3FGW@W2XO, or c/o W3VC, CMU Radio Club, Pittsburgh, PA
"You can do what you want with my computer, but leave me alone!8-)"