nanog mailing list archives
Re: PI vs PA Address Space
From: David R Conrad <davidc () iij ad jp>
Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 23:03:25 +0900
Why /18? Is there reasoning or research behind this choice?
I'm not sure if there was any analytical justification (not sure how you'd go about doing that with any sort of reality). I believe it was a compromise between the people who wanted /14 and /16 and the people who wanted /19 or /24.
In Danvers I believe the metric "implemented hosts per routing table entry" was mentioned.
Measured how? Regards, -drc
Current thread:
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space, (continued)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space Mike Norris (May 17)
- PI vs PA Address Space Daniel Karrenberg (May 18)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space Sean Doran (May 18)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space bmanning (May 18)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space Karl Denninger, MCSNet (May 18)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space Michael Dillon (May 18)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space Peter Berger (May 19)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space Jerry Anderson (May 19)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space bmanning (May 18)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space Michael F. Nittmann (May 18)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space Jerry Anderson (May 18)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space David R Conrad (May 19)
- PI vs PA Address Space Daniel Karrenberg (May 19)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space peter (May 19)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space Michael F. Nittmann (May 19)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space bmanning (May 20)