3 ms·
This is probably the best historical document looking at the original discussions around IPng (which eventually became v6). Interestingly these debates were hap
by mprovost 11y ago
This is probably the best historical document looking at the original discussions around IPng (which eventually became v6). Interestingly these debates were happening right around the time of the invention of the www so there isn't a lot online today.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1454 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1454
Section 6 (Transition Plans) talks about plans to use new headers or IP Options to carry the extra information for the new protocol in an IPv4 packet. In the end they went for the alternative which was not to have a transition plan, they went for the dual stack approach instead.
The SIP proposal is interesting, it's basically the same as v4 but with 64 bit addresses. They were worried that it might not be enough, of course their predictions about exhausting the 32 bit address space were off by decades.
- zzalpha 11y agoThat section makes my point for me. From the text: (a) That IPng hosts can also use IPv4 or (b) There is translation by an intermediate system And that "The transition plans espoused by the various proposals are simply different combinations of the above." Those options are precisely equivalent to dual stack and NAT64 respectively. No method of extending the address space van avoid doing one of the two. Amusingly, it even predicts the situation today, noting that "Experience would tend to show that all these things will in fact happen, regardless of which protocol is chosen." The mistake the committee made was dismissing NAT immediately instead of standardizing and approach alongside dual stack, to provide operators with options.