Re: Question on mmap() in 64-bit OS
- From: phil-news-nospam@xxxxxxxx
- Date: 29 Nov 2007 14:28:46 GMT
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 05:00:55 -0800 (PST) J de Boyne Pollard <j.deboynepollard@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| p> Given that a lot of the real address space is highly
| p> structured (similar to how the way-over-addressed
| p> 128-bit IPv6 network address space is done), [...]
|
| The deprecation of site-local IP version 6 addresses is worth noting,
| in this context.
How does this context make that worth noting?
This is the wrong group/thread to discuss the many bad decisions made about
IPv6, so I will refrain.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2007-11-29-0826@xxxxxxxx |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Question on mmap() in 64-bit OS
- From: J de Boyne Pollard
- Question on mmap() in 64-bit OS
- References:
- Question on mmap() in 64-bit OS
- From: LaBird
- Re: Question on mmap() in 64-bit OS
- From: Wolfgang Draxinger
- Re: Question on mmap() in 64-bit OS
- From: LaBird
- Re: Question on mmap() in 64-bit OS
- From: phil-news-nospam
- Question on mmap() in 64-bit OS
- From: J de Boyne Pollard
- Question on mmap() in 64-bit OS
- Prev by Date: Re: running Linux with no swap space (but lots of RAM)
- Next by Date: Re: Question on mmap() in 64-bit OS
- Previous by thread: Question on mmap() in 64-bit OS
- Next by thread: Question on mmap() in 64-bit OS
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|