V6 still not supported

John Curran jcurran at istaff.org
Mon Mar 21 16:42:59 UTC 2022

On 20 Mar 2022, at 5:09 AM, Masataka Ohta <mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
> However, as William Allen Simpson wrote:
>> Then, the powers that be declared that IPv6 should have 128-bit
>> addresses, and a host of committees were setup with competing CLNP
>> (TUBA) co-chairs. They incorporated many ideas of CLNP and XNS that
>> were thought (by many of us) to be worthless, useless, and harmful.
>> Committee-itis at its worst.
> IAB hideously striked back to make IPv6 something a lot worse than
> CLNP and XNS.

Alas, the above characterization doesn’t even come close to the actual history of IPng – 

 - There was an open call for proposals. 
 - We had many submissions: Nimrod, PIP, SIP, TUBA, IPAE, CATNIP (TP/IX), ...
 - SIP absorbed IPAE, and then PIP merged with SIP to form SIPP
 - Three final proposals CATNIP, TUBA, SIPP
 - Chicago Big-10 workshop did final review and recommended SIPP, only using 128-bit “NSAP-like” addresses 

This is all quite well covered by the IPv6 recommendation document - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1752 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1752>
(a document which probably should be required reading for those characterizing the history of IPv6) 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20220321/88e4a7ee/attachment.html>

More information about the NANOG mailing list