nanog mailing list archives
RE: IPv4 address length technical design
From: "Tony Hain" <alh-ietf () tndh net>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 12:11:05 -0700
Sadiq Saif [mailto:sadiq () asininetech com] wrote: On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Chris Campbell <chris () ctcampbell com> wrote:Is anyone aware of any historical documentation relating to the choice of 32bits for an IPv4 address?Cheers.I believe the relevant RFC is RFC 791 - https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc791
Actually that was preceded by RFC 760, which in turn was a derivative of IEN 123. I believe the answer to the original question is partially available on a series of pages starting at : http://www.networksorcery.com/enp/default1101.htm IEN 2 is likely to be of particular interest ...
Current thread:
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design, (continued)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Kevin Broderick (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Seth Mos (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Izaac (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design George Herbert (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design William Herrin (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Owen DeLong (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Marco Hogewoning (Oct 04)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design joel jaeggli (Oct 04)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Kevin Broderick (Oct 03)
- RE: IPv4 address length technical design Naslund, Steve (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Jeroen van Aart (Oct 29)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design George Herbert (Oct 03)
- RE: IPv4 address length technical design Tony Patti (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 03)