<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/14/21 5:37 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:fd1eaea5-a4d7-0533-4fae-028cf35e7196@ofcourseimright.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p>8+8 came <b>MUCH</b> later than that, and really wasn't ready
for prime time. The reason we know that is that work was the
basis of LISP and ILNP. Yes, standing on the shoulders of
giants. And there certainly were poor design decisions in IPv6,
bundling IPsec being one. But the idea that operators were
ignored? Feh.<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I wasn't there at actual meetings at the time but I find the
notion that operators were ignored pretty preposterous too. There
was a significant amount of bleed over between the two as I recall
from going to Interop's. What incentive do vendors have to ignore
their customers? Vendors have incentive to listen to customer
requirements and abstract them to take into account things can't
see on the outside, but to actually give the finger to them? And
given how small the internet community was back while this was
happening, I find it even more unlikely. <br>
</p>
<p>But Randy still hasn't told us what would have worked and why it
would have succeeded.</p>
<p>Mike<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:fd1eaea5-a4d7-0533-4fae-028cf35e7196@ofcourseimright.com">
<p> </p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 14.09.21 14:10, Randy Bush wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:m28rzzqrwz.wl-randy@psg.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">and 8+8, variable length, ... just didn't happen, eh?
the nice thing about revisionist history is that anybody can play.
randy
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>