🚀 go-pugleaf

Kent K. Kuriyama (kent@humu.nosc.mil) wrote:
: I would like to get comments regarding the problems of using multiple
: class 'C' addresses vice a single class 'B' addresses.  Obviously
: this is an issue because the NIC is hesitant in granting the rapidly
: diminishing number of class 'B' addresses.
: 
: We intend to have approximately 2000 IP addresses with typically 50
: address per sub-net.  Using class 'C' address we are looking at 40 sub-
: nets or approximately 10 'C' addresses.

There is something called supernetting, which is analogeous to subnetting
which allows a group of class C addresses to be treated as one entity.

: 
: Questions:
: 
: 1)  What kind of management problems will we run into if we use class
: 'C' vice 'B'?  It seems to me that use of multiple class 'C' addresses
: would not change the number of routers required - the number of sub-nets
: dictates that.
: 
: 2)  Someone mentioned that linking up a bunch of 'C' addresses will
: require the use of some external gateway protocol (make sense - we need
: to route between class 'C' networks) on our routers.  Is this a big
: deal?  Is EGP a feature only available on expensive routers?
: 
: 3)  Are there any advantages to getting a contiguous set of class 'c'
: addresses (e.g. 192.101.190,191,192, . . . etc)?

You do need a continious group for the supeneting, the group must be
a power of 2 (2,4,8,...)

: 
: 4)  Would there be any problem in implementing a single domain name
: DNS over multiple class 'C' addresses?
: 
: Thanks.
: 
: Kent Kuriyama
: kent@nosc.mil

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans                                   |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 429 9199  (Home)                    |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office)             |