🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan23.002517.22830@nosc.mil>
   kent@humu.nosc.mil (Kent K. Kuriyama) writes:
>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.

Right now is a really bad time to have to make this kind of decision.
Today, it will be really painful to run with the C's; next year most
routers will probably start to know how to do this.

>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.

Mostly yes.

>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?

Currently, the only routing protocol that understands subnet masks is
OSPF. New versions under development by router vendors extends this
capability to
	RIP version 2
	BGP version 4

>3)  Are there any advantages to getting a contiguous set of class 'c'
>addresses (e.g. 192.101.190,191,192, . . . etc)?

If you get the multiple C's, be sure to get a block that's aligned on a
power of 2; eg 192.208.16.0 - 192.208.31.255. When the newer protocols
are in place, this will allow your network to only take up one route
entry in the backbone.
>
>4)  Would there be any problem in implementing a single domain name
>DNS over multiple class 'C' addresses?

No problem.


-- 
/ Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer	Internet E-mail: lars@CMC.COM
  CMC Network Products / Rockwell Int'l	Telephone: +1-805-968-4262	
  Santa Barbara, CA 93117-3083		TeleFAX:   +1-805-968-8256