[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Google
  Web www.spinics.net

Re: Variable length internet addresses in TCP/IP: history



On 15-Feb-12 08:42, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> As I recall, there was essentially no experience with variable length
> addresses -- and certainly no production experience -- then or even by
> the early 90s, when essentially the same decision was made and for
> essentially the same reason.[1]
>
> It's not that variable length addressing is a bad idea; it's that it
> didn't get the research work and specification detail it needed, for
> introduction into what had become critical infrastructure.  What I
> recall during the IPng discussions of the early 90s was promotion of
> the /concept/ of variable length addressing but without the
> experiential base to provide assurance we knew how it would operate.

The problem with variable-length addressing that, in practice, one needs
to specify a maximum length.  The result, therefore, is that you don't
have variable-length addresses at all but rather fixed-length addresses
with a shorthand encoding for unused bits.

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking


<<attachment: smime.p7s>>

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[IETF Annoucements]     [IETF Obscurity Interest]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux]     [Pilates]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]

Add to Google