4 ms·

Because they didn't realize how that was the fundamental problem. There are some designers who knew their system would be incompatible but thought it was inter

Because they didn't realize how that was the fundamental problem. There are some designers who knew their system would be incompatible but thought it was interesting enough to design anyway, like RINA. There are other designers who just didn't realize why this was a problem, like ipv8. The ipv8 designer is currently berating the NANOG (north america network operators group) mailing list for not already supporting ipv8 on all networks. If it's compatible then why do they need to do anything to add support, eh? People get emotionally attached to the name "IPv6" being bad, and don't realize how putting the same stuff in a different protocol makes that one just as bad, but without the 30 year head start. If a new proposal is about the same as IPv6 but isn't already supported by most equipment, then wouldn't it be better to use IPv6 instead?

tonymet 6mo ago
some of the alternatives were simpler and deliberate attempts to reduce the scope of the migration problem. You can’t say “all approaches would have suffered the same migration effort” as if it’s a given. That’s like saying UTF8 and UTF16 had the same migration effort because they both tried to migrate from 1-byte code points. UTF8 was way easier.
- zadikian 6mo ago
  Yeah and UTF-8 shouldn't be taken for granted. I always wondered why there's still UTF-16 in so many places, even Swift strings (apparently changed in v5)... It's cause that was the natural replacement for UCS-2, which for certain reasons was beating UTF-8 early-on.