[124664] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: legacy /8
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Sat Apr 3 14:12:56 2010
To: Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 03 Apr 2010 13:12:20 +1030."
<20100403131220.5dce0bbc@opy.nosense.org>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2010 14:11:05 -0400
Cc: NANOG List <nanog@nanog.org>, vint@google.com
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1270318265_4449P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 13:12:20 +1030, Mark Smith said:
> going to be enough. I'm not sure why the 32 bit address size was
> persisted with at that point - maybe it was because there would be
> significant performance loss in handling addresses greater than what
> was probably the most common host word size at the time.
I've always been surprised that the early preponderance of 36-bit
machines (DEC -10/20, Multics boxes) didn't stick us with a 36 bit address.
That would have bought us a few more decades. ;)
--==_Exmh_1270318265_4449P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFLt4S5cC3lWbTT17ARAjk0AKCg31Z2FbEBNsip3xMTUcQmhU9dTwCgq1R5
vNJUr0F6cV/AAq1eWgfNgBU=
=gX1W
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1270318265_4449P--
