V6 still not supported

Masataka Ohta mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp
Tue Mar 22 08:08:17 UTC 2022


John Curran wrote:

>> 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 –

That's too recent. First, as I wrote:

: TUBA is TCP/UDP over CLNP (ConnectionLess Network Protocol) designed
: by so infamous OSI, which is why it was denied by IETF through
: democratic process even though IAB tried to deploy it.

occurred, after which the history of IPng started.

>   - 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

and such steps were controlled by IAB, that is, you merely
support my point that:

 > IAB hideously striked back to make IPv6 something a lot worse than
 > CLNP and XNS.

It should also be noted that merger is just political
ceremony to pretend IPng were resulted from cooperation
of many contributors only to make it bloat by
incorporating all the features without technical merits.

						Masataka Ohta




More information about the NANOG mailing list