Re: what about 48 bits?

[Roland Perry <lists () internetpolicyagency com>]

In article <201004071023.o37ANtww018405 () aurora sol net>, Joe Greco 
<jgreco () ns sol net> writes

> > interoperability and backwards  compatibility were the tipping points.
>
> Ah, yes, backwards compatibility: implementing the fantastic feature of
> breaking the network...

By "backwards compatibility" I mean the ability to use the new LAN from 
a laptop that didn't have an Ethernet connection built in, and didn't 
have an optional [proprietary] internal Ethernet card available either.

Later on, of course, you would get PCMCIA cards and USB dongles rather 
than Centronics-port dongles. But the market for these remained 
dominated by the Ethernet standard, rather than others.

> we all remember the fun of what happened when
> someone incorrectly unhooked a 10base2 network segment; D-Link managed
> to one-up that on the theoretically more-robust 10baseT/UTP by
> introducing a card that'd break your network when you powered off the
> attached PC.

That tale of woe doesn't really sound like it's the fault of backwards 
compatibility. Didn't the operational status of the LAX immigration 
department fall to zero for almost a whole day, once; as a result of a 
rogue network card crashing the LAN?
--
Roland Perry