4 ms·

Around 1990, IETF had a big fight over where to go from "not enough bits" IPv4. Should we IPvNext with an incremental "mostly just add more bits"? Or attempt a

Around 1990, IETF had a big fight over where to go from "not enough bits" IPv4. Should we IPvNext with an incremental "mostly just add more bits"? Or attempt a "second-system syndrome" "let's punt this time on rough consensus and working code" kitchen-sink monstrosity of a... err, IPv6. Followed by years and years of "ok, IPv6 was arguably the wrong call, but here we are now, things are turning around, and it will replace IPv4 RSN". I don't recall what Vint Cerf's position was. But attributing the last few decades of IP dysfunction to 1970's choices seems... incomplete.

commandersaki 3y ago
> I don't recall what Vint Cerf's position was. But attributing the last few decades of IP dysfunction to 1970's choices seems... incomplete. Yeah, I don't really think Cerf's decision really applies to the blunder that is IPv6. There were other options available to the IPng team that were foregone for SIPP knowing there was absolutely no transition/migration plan whereas the others had at least given this area some consideration. I'm sort of expecting in year 40 of this attempt to transition to IPv6, we'll collectively realise it's a losing battle and look at future Internet architectures as salvation.