nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv4 address length technical design
From: Cutler James R <james.cutler () consultant com>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 19:10:04 -0400
On Oct 3, 2012, at 4:17 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc2 () dcrocker net> wrote:
Is anyone aware of any historical documentation relating to the choice of 32bits for an IPv4 address?...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... My theory is that there is a meta-rule to make new address spaces have 4 times as many bits as the previous generation. We have three data points to establish this for the Internet, and that's the minimum needed to run a correlation: Arpanet, IPv4, IPv6... d/
Didn't work for DecNet Phase III, Decnet Phase IV, Decnet Phase V (8, 16, 128).
Current thread:
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design, (continued)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Fred Baker (fred) (Oct 05)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Cutler James R (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design William Herrin (Oct 04)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Cutler James R (Oct 04)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design William Herrin (Oct 04)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Owen DeLong (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design George Herbert (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Tony Finch (Oct 04)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Owen DeLong (Oct 04)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Barry Shein (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Cutler James R (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design George Herbert (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 04)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Michael Thomas (Oct 05)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design David Miller (Oct 05)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Tony Finch (Oct 08)