nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv4 address length technical design
From: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 15:59:12 -0400
On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 15:44:16 -0400, "Tony Patti" said:
Perhaps worth noting (for the archives) that a significant part of the early ARPAnet was DECsystem-10's with 36-bit words.
And the -10s and -20s were the major reason RFCs refer to octets rather than bytes, as they had a rather slippery notion of "byte" (anywhere from 6 to 9 bits, often multiple sizes used *in the same program*).
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design, (continued)
- 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 Naslund, Steve (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Jeroen van Aart (Oct 29)
- RE: IPv4 address length technical design Tony Hain (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design George Herbert (Oct 03)
- RE: IPv4 address length technical design Tony Patti (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Dave Crocker (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Jay Ashworth (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Jimmy Hess (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design David Conrad (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Eugen Leitl (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Masataka Ohta (Oct 04)
- Re: [tt] IPv4 address length technical design Eugen Leitl (Oct 04)
- Re: [tt] IPv4 address length technical design Masataka Ohta (Oct 04)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Barry Shein (Oct 04)