parker@zaphod.mpr.ca (Ross Parker) (10/31/89)
Up here in BC we have a network known as BCNet which connects our three universities and a number of research institutions. The current network is set up with a backbone on network 128.189, and satellite networks using network number 134.87. The satellite networks have all been assigned chunks of the third byte to be used at their whim... i.e. here at MPR, we are free to use any number between 134.87.131.xxx and 134.87.140.xxx (where 'xxx' is of course between 1 and 254). The subnet mask is currently set to 0xffffff00. As some of our satellite networks have few hosts, we want to change the subnet masks to, say, 0xffffff70, leaving 5 bits, or 32 possible host addresses per subnet. The 'satellite' networks are hung off of the main network using either Proteon P-4200 routers, or Sun 3s acting as routers. These routing boxes all know which satellite networks contain which chunks of the '134.87' address space. The $64,000 question is: do we need to change all subnet masks at the same time (which would be a *real* drag...), or can multiple subnet masks exist on the same network at the same time? Any comments, help, suggestions, money :-) would be greatly appreciated. Ross Parker | Why do they put me down? Microtel Pacific Research Ltd. | Make out that I'm a clown? Burnaby, B.C., | I drink scotch whisky all Canada, eh? uunet!ubc-cs!mpre!parker | day long (604)293-5495 parker@mpre.mpr.ca | Yeah I'm gonna save my money Disclaimer: | (gonna put it all away...) My fingers are doing all the work... | 'Cause I'm a Scotsman
tcp-ip-relay@NIC.DDN.MIL (11/01/89)
There was a session on routeing at Interop this year and
it sound like OSPF was being implemented right now. I can't
remember who was doing it, but I can look that up in my notes.
Brian Holmes
CSC Operating Systems & Communications
SNAIL : Wayne State University, 5925 Woodward, Detroit MI 48202 U.S.A.
BITNET : BHOLMES@WAYNEST1
INTERNET : Brian_Holmes@UM.CC.UMICH.EDU
UUCP : $UMIX|ITIVAX!WAYNE-MTS!BRIAN_HOLMES
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Sound more like the universe of OSPF (Open Shortest Path First)
>routing, which allows a more general concept of subnetting.
>(Just finished the first ^^30 pages of it.)
>Has anybody actually implemeted OSPF?
>It sounds stange to have a new protocol at THE SAME LEVEL at
>TCP/UDP.
>--------------------
>Brad Carlson <carlson@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu> or <brad-carlson@uiuc.edu>
>University of Illinois -- Consultant -- NeXT guru -- Windows Programmerdlj@proteon.com (Daniel L. Jones) (11/09/89)
Brad, Proteon is implementing OSPF in their next release of software for their p4200 Router. Dan Jones Proteon Customer Service
tds@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (antonio.desimone) (11/16/89)
From article <8911150145.AA09836@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, by tcp-ip-relay@NIC.DDN.MIL: > There was a session on routeing at Interop this year and > it sound like OSPF was being implemented right now. I can't > remember who was doing it, but I can look that up in my notes. > John Moy from Proteon. He said that Proteon has a test implemetation up and showed a picture of an OSPF testbed (that's S28 in your Firday Sessions binder). Are you out there John? How about posting a status report? -- Tony DeSimone AT&T Bell Laboratories Holmdel, NJ 07733 att!tds386e!tds