BOOTP & ARP history

Michael Thomas mike at
Sat Mar 19 22:13:28 UTC 2022

On 3/19/22 1:44 PM, James R Cutler wrote:
>> On Mar 19, 2022, at 2:49 PM, Michael Thomas <mike at> wrote:
>> IPv6 in comparison was very familiar ground. To me it seemed that it was ipv4 with bigger addresses and that was about it. But I've never understood all of the strum und drang about ipv6.
> As one tightly involved in multiprotocol networking in the '90s, I viewed with interest the evolution of IPv6. Nothing about IPv6 changed fundamental physical network design principals, except to remove IPv4 limits on the number of subnetworks. Oh, and the removal of coordinated RFC1918 addressing between members of the ever active merger and acquisition world. Life became much rosier. One could concievably deploy a plant floor with a million IPv6 globally unique device address without kludges required by IPv4.
> I never ran into Sturm und Drang about IPv6 itself, only about the required investment in people and hardware, which I considered a short term bump with a long term payoff.

There is a surprising amount of it here. I'm trying to understand 
exactly what the problems are but it's all very vague Some people are 
still intent to relitigate 30 year old debates. But "doesn't work" or 
"bloated" or "don't like it" or "second system syndrome" are really 

> That, I discovered, was the true barrier to IPv6 planning and deployment — middle management, especial account managers. The basic argument was “The customer must first ask for it and sign a contract, then we will prepare for it.” Too much “not in my cost center” mentality crippled the ability of network implementers to even deploy IPv6 for demonstration purposes, as well as for learning. The idea that “my investment” might also benefit others, even in my own company was anathema. I have never become short sighted enough to endorse such idiocy.
Yep, that's pretty much my experience with Steve Deering at Cisco. 
Software was one thing and since it was semi-centralized with IOS thus 
could be amortized, but spinning new silicon was a hard no. Even new 
silicon trying to get them to pay attention was painful because it was 
custom for whatever platform they were on so they had little incentive 
to go it alone -- not to mention their designers hadn't dealt with it 
before so there would be a learning curve.


More information about the NANOG mailing list