| |||||||||||||
Heh. But have you actually lloked on the facts?Heh. But have you actually lloked on the facts?Posted Jan 27, 2011 9:15 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)In reply to: Heh. But have you actually lloked on the facts? by khim Parent article: LCA: IP address exhaustion and the end of the open net
AMD64 did not require people to recompile everything just to run on it. it supports running a pure 32 bit system just fine, it also supports running a 64 bit OS while still being able to run unmodified 32 bit binaries.
people purchased the AMD64 systems who never intended to run 64 bit code, because the cpus were better at running 32 bit code than the prior generation, the 64 bit support was pure gravy.
(Log in to post comments)
That's right. Posted Jan 27, 2011 9:47 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Yeah, but all this is true for Itanium as well - except the last part. And this last part is the reason for the Itanium failure. Today's routers also support IPv6 - but just like with AMD64 this support is usually disabled. This is why magic alternatives to IPv6 will not fly: while IPv6 support requires some configuration changes and some additional hardware (to handle higher load) other alternatives will require larger changes. ISPs do have IPv6-capable hardware (IPv6 was pure gravy when they bought routers but they just decided they don't need it), they just decided that it's cheaper for now to operate it in IPv4-only mode. And you can run IPv4-only stuff when router is dual-stack enabled. Looks more like AMD64 then Itanium to me.
That's right. Posted Jan 27, 2011 11:56 UTC (Thu) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]
Some configuration? Will contact you when we start where I work - I'm sure you'll figure it out for us in 5 minutes or so. Hilarious!
|
|||||||||||||