nanog mailing list archives
Re: legacy /8
From: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2010 14:11:05 -0400
On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 13:12:20 +1030, Mark Smith said:
going to be enough. I'm not sure why the 32 bit address size was persisted with at that point - maybe it was because there would be significant performance loss in handling addresses greater than what was probably the most common host word size at the time.
I've always been surprised that the early preponderance of 36-bit machines (DEC -10/20, Multics boxes) didn't stick us with a 36 bit address. That would have bought us a few more decades. ;)
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Re: legacy /8, (continued)
- Re: legacy /8 Joe Greco (Apr 04)
- Re: legacy /8 Roland Perry (Apr 04)
- Commodore PET, was: Re: legacy /8 Jeroen van Aart (Apr 11)
- Re: Commodore PET, was: Re: legacy /8 Paul Vixie (Apr 11)
- alt.folklore.nanog (was:Re: Commodore PET, was: Re: legacy /8) Lamar Owen (Apr 14)
- Re: alt.folklore.nanog Jeroen van Aart (Apr 14)
- Re: legacy /8 Steven Bellovin (Apr 02)
- Re: legacy /8 Michael Dillon (Apr 02)
- Re: legacy /8 Jeffrey I. Schiller (Apr 02)
- Re: legacy /8 Mark Smith (Apr 02)
- Re: legacy /8 Valdis . Kletnieks (Apr 03)
- Re: legacy /8 Matthew Kaufman (Apr 02)
- Re: legacy /8 Barry Shein (Apr 02)
- Re: legacy /8 bmanning (Apr 02)
- Re: legacy /8 Randy Bush (Apr 02)
- Re: legacy /8 bmanning (Apr 02)
- Re: legacy /8 jim deleskie (Apr 02)
- Re: legacy /8 Robert Brockway (Apr 03)
- Re: legacy /8 David Conrad (Apr 03)
- Re: legacy /8 Larry Sheldon (Apr 02)
- Re: legacy /8 Michael Thomas (Apr 02)