nanog mailing list archives

Re: what about 48 bits?

From: Jay Nakamura <zeusdadog () gmail com>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 12:09:02 -0400

negotiation and backward compatibility.  I think that one of the
reasons for the continuing success of "Ethernet" technologies has been
implementation simplicity and 100% compatibility above the level of
the NIC.


I would have attributed the success of Ethernet to price!

Current thread:

Re: what about 48 bits?, (continued)
- - - Re: what about 48 bits? Mark Andrews (Apr 04)
    - Re: what about 48 bits? Mark Smith (Apr 04)
  - Re: what about 48 bits? Mikael Abrahamsson (Apr 04)
- Re: what about 48 bits? Richard A Steenbergen (Apr 04)
  - Re: what about 48 bits? Matthew Kaufman (Apr 04)
    - Re: what about 48 bits? Scott Howard (Apr 04)
    - Re: what about 48 bits? Mark Smith (Apr 04)
    - Re: what about 48 bits? Richard A Steenbergen (Apr 04)
    - Re: what about 48 bits? joel jaeggli (Apr 04)
    - Re: what about 48 bits? Bill Bogstad (Apr 05)
    - Re: what about 48 bits? Jay Nakamura (Apr 05)
    - Re: what about 48 bits? Steven Bellovin (Apr 05)
    - Re: what about 48 bits? Jay Nakamura (Apr 05)
    - Re: what about 48 bits? Valdis . Kletnieks (Apr 05)
    - Re: what about 48 bits? Steven Bellovin (Apr 05)
    - Re: what about 48 bits? Nick Hilliard (Apr 05)
    - Re: what about 48 bits? Jeroen van Aart (Apr 07)
    - Re: what about 48 bits? Vince Fuller (Apr 08)
    - Re: what about 48 bits? Barry Shein (Apr 05)
    - Re: what about 48 bits? Steven Bellovin (Apr 05)
    - Re: what about 48 bits? Bill Stewart (Apr 05)

(Thread continues...)