<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 12:44 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:38ac691f-f48d-d9ef-0b59-074bbeb7025b@lear.ch">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<br>
<p>There were four proposals for the IPng:</p>
<ul>
<li>NIMROD, PIP, SIP, and TUBA</li>
</ul>
<p>SIP was the one that was chosen, supported by endpoint
manufacturers such as Sun and SGI, and it was the MOST
compatible. Operators and router manufacturers at the time
pushed TUBA, which was considerably less compatible with the
concepts used in v4 because of variable length addressing. If
we endpoints had some notion that v6 would take as long as it
has to diffuse, perhaps we all might have thought differently.
I don't know.<br>
</p>
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>So I'm beginning to think that the reason ipv6 didn't take off is
one simple thing: time. All of the infighting took years and by
then that ship had long sailed. The basic mechanisms for v6 for
hosts were not complicated and all of the second system syndrome
fluff could be mostly be ignored or implemented when it actually
made sense. If this had been settled within a year instead of
five, there may have been a chance especially since specialized
hardware was either nonexistent or just coming on the scene. I
mean, Kalpana was still pretty new when a lot of this was being
first discussed from what I can tell. Maybe somebody else knows
when hardware routing came on the scene but there was still lots
of software forwarding planes when I started at Cisco in 1998 just
as broadband was starting to flow.</p>
<p>The IETF was a victim of its own dysfunction, film at 11 and now
we're having a 30 year reunion.<br>
</p>
<p>Mike<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>