what about 48 bits?
lists at internetpolicyagency.com
Wed Apr 7 05:43:41 CDT 2010
In article <201004071023.o37ANtww018405 at aurora.sol.net>, Joe Greco
<jgreco at ns.sol.net> writes
>>interoperability and backwards compatibility were the tipping points.
>Ah, yes, backwards compatibility: implementing the fantastic feature of
>breaking the network...
By "backwards compatibility" I mean the ability to use the new LAN from
a laptop that didn't have an Ethernet connection built in, and didn't
have an optional [proprietary] internal Ethernet card available either.
Later on, of course, you would get PCMCIA cards and USB dongles rather
than Centronics-port dongles. But the market for these remained
dominated by the Ethernet standard, rather than others.
>we all remember the fun of what happened when
>someone incorrectly unhooked a 10base2 network segment; D-Link managed
>to one-up that on the theoretically more-robust 10baseT/UTP by
>introducing a card that'd break your network when you powered off the
That tale of woe doesn't really sound like it's the fault of backwards
compatibility. Didn't the operational status of the LAX immigration
department fall to zero for almost a whole day, once; as a result of a
rogue network card crashing the LAN?
More information about the NANOG