Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Translating 64-bit addresses
Message-ID: <4X-9HLH@xds13.ferranti.com>
Date: 11 Mar 91 14:56:00 GMT
References: <6590@hplabsz.HP.COM> <32580002@hpcuhe.cup.hp.com> <1991Mar10.154107.10976@newcastle.ac.uk>
Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Lines: 9

In article <1991Mar10.154107.10976@newcastle.ac.uk> Michael.Marsden@newcastle.ac.uk (Michael Marsden) writes:
> So what comes after Eta, when we start arguing about 96 bits vs. 128 bits in
> a decades time?

Gotta be 128 bits, since after you use up 64 bits for the IP address 96 bits
would only leave 32 bits of address space for each node.
-- 
Peter da Silva.  `-_-'  peter@ferranti.com
+1 713 274 5180.  'U`  "Have you hugged your wolf today?"