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

what about 48 bits?

Subject: what about 48 bits?
From: zeusdadog at gmail.com (Jay Nakamura)
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 12:09:02 -0400
In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>

> 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!

Follow-Ups:
- what about 48 bits?
  - From: smb at cs.columbia.edu (Steven Bellovin)

References:
- what about 48 bits?
  - From: skandor at gmail.com (A.B. Jr.)
- what about 48 bits?
  - From: ras at e-gerbil.net (Richard A Steenbergen)
- what about 48 bits?
  - From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman)
- what about 48 bits?
  - From: scott at doc.net.au (Scott Howard)
- what about 48 bits?
  - From: nanog at 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org (Mark Smith)
- what about 48 bits?
  - From: ras at e-gerbil.net (Richard A Steenbergen)
- what about 48 bits?
  - From: joelja at bogus.com (joel jaeggli)
- what about 48 bits?
  - From: bogstad at pobox.com (Bill Bogstad)

Prev by Date: what about 48 bits?
Next by Date: What is "The Internet" TCP/IP or UNIX-to-UNIX ?
Previous by thread: what about 48 bits?
Next by thread: what about 48 bits?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread