<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">On Feb 11, 2021, at 9:01 PM, Kenneth J. Dupuis <<a href="mailto:ken@kjtd.net" class="">ken@kjtd.net</a>> wrote:<br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="auto" class="">1995? <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6" class="">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6</a></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote">On Feb 11, 2021 8:51 PM, Michael Thomas <<a href="mailto:mike@mtcc.com" class="">mike@mtcc.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution" class=""><blockquote class="quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir="ltr" class="">
<br class="">
On 2/11/21 5:41 PM, Izaac wrote:
<br class="">
>
<br class="">
>> IPv6 restores that ability and RFC-1918 is a bandaid for an obsolete protocol.
<br class="">
> So, in your mind, IPv4 was "obsolete" in 1996 -- almost three years
<br class="">
> before IPv6 was even specified? Fascinating. I could be in no way
<br class="">
> mistaken for an IPv4/NAT apologist, but that one's new on me.
<br class="">
<br class="">
ipv6 was on my radar in the early 90's. it was definitely at least 1993,
<br class="">
maybe earlier.
<br class="">
<br class="">
Mike
<br class=""></p></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote>Back then some thought it would be more like DECnet Phase V.</div><br class=""></body></html>