nanog mailing list archives
Re: RFC 1918 network range choices
From: Brian Kantor <Brian () ampr org>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 12:21:23 -0700
On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 03:04:42PM -0400, valdis.kletnieks () vt edu wrote:
Can't speak t the ASICs, but CIDR existed, even if your vendor was behind the times and still calling stuff class A/B/C. (Such nonsense persisted well into this century). Check the dates...
The concept of using a number-of-bits to describe what is now called CIDR existed as early as 1987: http://www-mice.cs.ucl.ac.uk/multimedia/misc/tcp_ip/8706.mm.www/0011.html - Brian
Current thread:
- Re: RFC 1918 network range choices, (continued)
- Re: RFC 1918 network range choices Akshay Kumar via NANOG (Oct 05)
- Re: RFC 1918 network range choices Jay R. Ashworth (Oct 05)
- Message not available
- Re: RFC 1918 network range choices John Kristoff (Oct 05)
- Re: RFC 1918 network range choices Randy Bush (Oct 05)
- Re: RFC 1918 network range choices Joe Klein (Oct 06)
- Re: RFC 1918 network range choices Ryan Harden (Oct 06)
- Re: RFC 1918 network range choices Daniel Karrenberg (Oct 06)
- Re: RFC 1918 network range choices John Kristoff (Oct 05)
- RE: RFC 1918 network range choices Jay Ashworth (Oct 05)
- Re: RFC 1918 network range choices valdis . kletnieks (Oct 05)
- Re: RFC 1918 network range choices Brian Kantor (Oct 05)
- Re: RFC 1918 network range choices Joe Provo (Oct 05)
- Re: RFC 1918 network range choices Steve Feldman (Oct 05)
- Re: RFC 1918 network range choices Lyndon Nerenberg (Oct 05)
- Re: RFC 1918 network range choices Michael Thomas (Oct 05)
- Re: RFC 1918 network range choices Alain Hebert (Oct 06)
- Re: RFC 1918 network range choices Owen DeLong (Oct 06)