3 ms·
It wouldn’t actually be across the board though, the number of organisations that actually interact with AS 2805, APACS 70, ISO 8583... is orders of magnitude s
by AmericanChopper 8y ago
It wouldn’t actually be across the board though, the number of organisations that actually interact with AS 2805, APACS 70, ISO 8583... is orders of magnitude smaller than the number that have interact with IPv4. I think you’re also overestimating how robust these standards are, I’ve never seen two implementations of ISO 8583 that were the same, and I’ve seen some that would process long account numbers without issue. But the real difference is that every stakeholder has a vested interest in keeping their networks operable. Your average consumer doesn’t know what IPv6 is, or who the IETF are, and won’t take kindly to being told they should spend money to fix a problem they created decades ago. Banks don’t have that issue, and those standards aren’t nearly as entrenched as IPv4 is.
- leejo 8y agoI never saw two implementations that were the same either, it was a particular annoyance, but they all defined the PAN as n..19 IME (and 19 was indeed a rare case generally seen with now defunct/less popular card schemes so there's proabably still room to fill). It's true that the number of organisations that interact with the message formats for sending card transactions is significantly smaller than other things, but we're talking about every single bank, every single PSP, every single embedded card device, and probably many more organisations beyond that, currently in operation today. Given the glacial pace of most banks' IT operations I would not expect them to do be able to achieve this within a time frame of several years or perhaps even a decade. Sure these are not the same challenges as IPv4 and such, but it is in no way a trivial change to tweak a message format that has been in use since before most HN users were born :)