IPv6 woes - RFC

Wed Sep 15 23:20:06 UTC 2021

On 9/14/21 12:44 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>
> There were four proposals for the IPng:
>
>   * NIMROD, PIP, SIP, and TUBA
>
> SIP was the one that was chosen, supported by endpoint manufacturers 
> such as Sun and SGI, and it was the MOST compatible.  Operators and 
> router manufacturers at the time pushed TUBA, which was considerably 
> less compatible with the concepts used in v4 because of variable 
> length addressing.   If we endpoints had some notion that v6 would 
> take as long as it has to diffuse, perhaps we all might have thought 
> differently. I don't know.
>
>
So I'm beginning to think that the reason ipv6 didn't take off is one 
simple thing: time. All of the infighting took years and by then that 
ship had long sailed. The basic mechanisms for v6 for hosts were not 
complicated and all of the second system syndrome fluff could be mostly 
be ignored or implemented when it actually made sense. If this had been 
settled within a year instead of five, there may have been a chance 
especially since specialized hardware was either nonexistent or just 
coming on the scene. I mean, Kalpana was still pretty new when a lot of 
this was being first discussed from what I can tell. Maybe somebody else 
knows when hardware routing came on the scene but there was still lots 
of software forwarding planes when I started at Cisco in 1998 just as 
broadband was starting to flow.

The IETF was a victim of its own dysfunction, film at 11 and now we're 
having a 30 year reunion.

Mike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20210915/fcabc24d/attachment.html>