3 ms·
This was deliberate: the idea was that IPng wouldn't get adopted, or even traction in the IETF, if it didn't provide additional functionality/fix perceived prob
by dboreham 2y ago
This was deliberate: the idea was that IPng wouldn't get adopted, or even traction in the IETF, if it didn't provide additional functionality/fix perceived problems beyond just address space exhaustion. Remember also that NAT wasn't really a thing at that time. It might have existed but wasn't widely used like happened subsequently.
Source: was there.
- JoshTriplett 2y agoI can certainly understand that perspective. But from today's perspective, it seems like IPv6 adoption was slowed by ideological arguments like "people should use SLAAC, not DHCP". By all means introduce a new means of obtaining addresses, but let it live or (preferably) die on its own merits, rather than attaching it and a dozen other albatrosses around IPv6's neck. If IPv6 had started from day one by saying "just add an IPv6 block to your DHCP server and let any client that understands IPv6 get an IPv6 address", that would have been an easier sell.