22 Feb
2012
22 Feb
'12
8:47 p.m.
On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:19:31 -0800, David Josephson WA6NMF
<wa6nmf(a)josephson.com> wrote:
I am puzzled that we want to assign 44-net addresses
one by one as shown
in amprhosts rather than as subnets. Perhaps there is a historical
reason for that. The routing table could get to be very large (we can hope!)
I think the reason we started it that way was the sparse population of
addresses and the fact we coordinators didn't initially know any
better coupled with the geographical/topological distribution of IP
nodes where we couldn't really count on a node being in any specific
location within the net. Nodes had to determine their neighbors by
discovery and they were routed manually.
I didn't start subnetting until users wanted blocks of IP addresses
for specific purposes, like UHF vs VHF gateways, digipeaters, or
ARES/RACES. I wrote a paper on it but I don't know how widely it was
distributed or how well it was received.
--
Geoff Joy - ke6qh -
AmprNet IP Address Coordinator for San Bernardino & Riverside Counties.
geoff(a)windomeister.com