stev@VAX.FTP.COM (06/18/90)
i mean, hey, life is *too* short, right? last monday, at the router requirments working group, we discussed subnet bits. we discussed what we would require a router to support. there is talk about variable lenght subnet bits. there is talk about someone writing an RFC on such things. if you are out there, please mail to me. we also talked about non-contigious subnet bits. we were not sure that anyone was using non-contigious subnet bits. there does seem to be strong interest in variable lenght subnet masks, though. so, where is the arguement, you ask? i mean, you *know* i am getting there, right? router requirments is thinking of requiring support for variable lenght subnet bits, but explicitly saying that a router does not have to implement non-contigious subnet bits (MAY in host requirments parlance). he ya go, campers. anyone wish to rise up and define a good reason to keep non-contigious subnet bits, assuming we require the ability to have more than one address on an interface . . . . . . your input on this matter is most appreciated. stev knowles stev@ftp.com 617-246-0900