On Tue, 18 May 2010 16:46:34 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>> And, for the 17th time, you *are* aware that I'm talking about earlier
>>> _computer_ network technologies, right?
>> 
>> It's all telecommunications, which is what I think Darren is saying.
> 
> And what I'm saying is that it just seems that whenever somebody sat
> down and designed a system for making computers talk to each other, they
> invisiged a LAN with a quite limited number of nodes.

Have you read up on IPX?  Used in some of the first PC networks, and it 
was designed with multiple networks in mind and routing.

I've actually talked with one the guys who came up with that stuff.  
"Limited" wasn't part of the equation, in fact, quite the opposite.

The fact that IPv6 uses the MAC address of the NIC as part of its address 
is something they "borrowed" from IPX, in fact.

>>> BTW, how come nobody uses that yet? And does it replace just the IP
>>> layer, or the entire protocol stack?
>> 
>> Some people do use it.  IPv6 runs at the same OSI level as IPv4, so
>> yes, it's a direct replacement.
> 
> I mean, for example, does TCP work differently with IPv6, or is it the
> exact same protocol just running over a different carrier?

I imagine Google could answer that question for you; I don't know off the 
top of my head.

Jim

Post a reply to this message