nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv4 address length technical design
From: Kevin Broderick <kbroder () accretive-networks net>
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 09:33:25 -0700
I'll add that in the mid-90's, in a University Of Washington lecture hall, Vint Cerf expressed some regret over going with 32 bits. Chuckle worthy and at the time, and a fond memory - K Sadiq Saif <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 thechoice of 32 bits for an IPv4 address?Cheers.I believe the relevant RFC is RFC 791 - https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc791 -- Sadiq S O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org
Current thread:
- IPv4 address length technical design Chris Campbell (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Sadiq Saif (Oct 03)
- 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 Sadiq Saif (Oct 03)
- RE: IPv4 address length technical design Naslund, Steve (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Jeroen van Aart (Oct 29)