V6 still not supported

Daniel Karrenberg dfk at ripe.net
Tue Mar 22 15:02:24 UTC 2022

Full match with my recollection about the cause for this sub optimal outcome. Happens to the best of us.

One has to remember that at the time we did not consider it a forgone conclusion that the products of the IETF woukd be the foundation of the Net. 

Daniel (age 63, memory not totally unreliable yet)

Sent from a handheld device.

> On 22. Mar 2022, at 13:46, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote:
> john,
> fwiw your story matches what is left of my memory.  one nuance
>> That’s not to say that there wasn’t "IETF politics” involved, but
>> rather that such politics were expressed as enormous pressure to “make
>> a decision”
> my take was that cidr had done a lot to relieve the immediate technical
> pressure for the short term; but there was a deep fear that the industry
> press was stirring a major poolpah about the end of the internet due to
> ipv4 exhaustion.  i.e. a seriously flawed technical compromise was
> pushed on us in reaction to a perception of bad press.
> i have learned that, when i am under great pressure to DO SOMETHING,
> it's time to step back, go make a cup of tea, and think.  the ietf did
> not.  and here we are, a quarter of a century later, still trying to
> clean up the mess.
> randy

More information about the NANOG mailing list