3 ms·
No I used to do OSI based networking for the UK's main x.400 domain - and we knew about the ip4 address exhaustion back then and I looked at some of the initial
by spacecowboy_lon 11y ago
No I used to do OSI based networking for the UK's main x.400 domain - and we knew about the ip4 address exhaustion back then and I looked at some of the initial proposals.
By the late 80's it was obvious that the way that ipv6 was proposed was not tenable - it should have been killed 20 years ago.
- RIMR 11y agoIPv6 wasn't proposed until 1996...
- walshemj 11y agothe RFC was published then but they had been working on it well before that
- dboreham 11y agoThe proposal for "IPng" that became IPv6 was selected in August 1994. It and various other proposed protocols had been under discussion in the IETF for roughly the previous two years (from memory). Prior to that the IPv4 address exhaustion issue was certainly known about. For example OSI CLNS had (has?) variable length addresses and was for a while a contender for IPng. NAT actually extended the lifetime of IPv4 by decades. In 1994 we were forecasting the end of IPv4 with the introduction of Windows95! Conversely, the biggest benefit IPv6 brings today is avoidance of NAT.
- antientropic 11y agoIPv6 was proposed in the mid-90s: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1752 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1752 However, what is non-tenable about IPv6, and how was this obvious in the 80s?