Andr'e PIRARD <A-PIRARD@BLIULG11.bitnet> (02/27/90)
Choosing a subnet mask is like betting at a race between many Appletalks vs one Ethernet. It seems that going for too small a number may have less impact for hosts than networks. Do these ideas sound correct? - I could choose a no man's land mask, by this I mean: - I start with 62 hosts/network, normally a 10/6 split, - But I use only every 8th network number: 2.0 4.0 etc... - My split can be described as 7/3/6, I use mask ...255.192, - If I fall short of networks, I just start using 3.0 5.0 ... - But I keep away from the odd numbers of larger networks, - If short of hosts, I may "enlarge" the mask on hosts of that network only, as long as all gateways on that network do use a per network mask and the odd number (2.64) is advertised identically to the even one (2.0) for routing to systems that only know of the smaller mask. - Should 62 be unrealistic, I may then "enlarge" all masks progressively. - It almost impossible to use several subnet numbers on a large local network, just because large means various systems. I am assuming static routing information contained exclusively in gateways for a start. Thanks for any comment. Andr'e PIRARD SEGI Univ. de Li`ege B26 - Sart Tilman B-4000 Li`ege 1 (Belgium) A-PIRARD@BLIULG11 on EARN alias BITNET A-PIRARD@VM1.EARN-ULG.AC.BE as known to Internet