[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

legacy /8

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. ;)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 227 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20100403/4346b779/attachment.bin>