3 ms·
IMO, they should have gone with a wildly smaller number. Enough IP addresses to get ~10% of the world online is just about the worst possible pick. It’s enough
by travisjungroth 7y ago
IMO, they should have gone with a wildly smaller number. Enough IP addresses to get ~10% of the world online is just about the worst possible pick. It’s enough to get entrenched, but not enough to finish the job. If it was 1024, they would have run into the problem while it was easily fixable. Y2K wouldn’t have been a problem if two-digit years started being used in 1999.
- bdamm 7y agoThe irony here is Y2K was just the start. We have Y2K-like problems coming up in 2038, 2050, 2106, and many others on smaller scales in between such as the 2036, 2040, and 2042. This tells me that it is not just poor judgement, but rather widespread systematic incomprehension regarding the longevity of systems, protocols, and data.
- p_l 7y agoThey did - original network addresses were, iirc, around 16 bit. Meanwhile OSI went with 20 byte maximum and strong preference for separating service and implementation and putting numeric addresses in implementation side...