net directed broadcasts

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Wed, 28 December 1994 22:52 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04180; 28 Dec 94 17:52 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04176; 28 Dec 94 17:52 EST
Received: from venera.isi.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08411; 28 Dec 94 17:52 EST
Received: from stilton.cisco.com by venera.isi.edu (5.65c/5.61+local-20) id <AA28697>; Wed, 28 Dec 1994 14:28:49 -0800
Received: from [171.69.126.178] (sl-chattel-08.cisco.com [171.69.126.178]) by stilton.cisco.com (8.6.8+c/CISCO.SERVER.1.1) with SMTP id OAA00598 for <rreq@isi.edu>; Wed, 28 Dec 1994 14:28:37 -0800
X-Sender: fred@stilton.cisco.com
Message-Id: <v02110100ab27817b7a2e@[171.69.126.187]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 1994 14:28:44 -0800
To: rreq@isi.edu
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
Subject: net directed broadcasts

this is one for rumination:

There is a fair amount of discussion of network-directed and
subnet-directed broadcasts. Since in a classless world the difference
between a network, a subnet, and a supernet is primarily in who assigned
it, I have changed the name uniformly to "network-directed". The concept of
letter bombing was an interesting one in a classful world, and is downright
amusing in a CIDR world.

I am, of course, aware of a few applications that use letter bombs instead
of IP multicast. The best I can do, I think, is indicate that the use of
network-directed broadcasts is a historical approach that some routers
support, and that should be supplanted in time by IP multicasting.

Does anyone have additional thoughts?

=============================================================================
    It's hardest to find the real answer when you already know what it is