On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 12:00:09 -0500 (EST), Noel Chiappa wrote:
*IPv6 only exists because of a previous round of FUD about
IPv4 address exhaustion* - one spread by the proponents of
yet another protocol that was going to "replace" IPv4 - i.e.
CLNP.
Noel, this assertion is just plain wrong.
So what was Kobe and the ensuing Boston Tea party about, then?
You are confusing a mis-handling of making a decision with the
instigating cause for the effort that involved that decision.
Kobe came roughly a year after work was done on considering the
problem of rapidly depleting address space availability. There was
plenty of basis for the concern about address space.
And CLNP was not proposed until well into that process.
Kobe was the culmination of a protracted process of disconnection
between the IAB and the rest of the community. (And for what it's
worth, the parallels with the current disconnect between the community
and the iesg/iab are pretty striking.) That CLNP advocates controlled
that later decision process is significant but not in terms of the
core technical problem that was being addressed.
Look, I'm not saying there wasn't concern about address space
usage rates, and eventual exhaustion - clearly there was.
you attributed the effrort to a CLNP consipracy. That's a pretty
silly assessment, no matter how serious and damaging the CLNP error
actually was.
However, my perception was that the IPng effort was started in
response to concerns raised by backers of CLNP, who did so in an
we had a lot of OSI types involved with the IAB at that point, so
there is some guilt-by-association that accounts for your erroneous
perception, in my opinion. But there were plenty of non-OSI folk also
concerned about address depletion.
the market found a way to route around our non-responsiveness.
...
We would probably have had to learn to live with NATs in any
case
This I actually agree with, but with a slightly different spin: I
think that even if we had written an IPng spec overnight, the
market would almost certainly still have gone with IPv4+NAT; just
less overall hassle, plus the *other* reasons people deploy NAT
(which you list).
wow. i think we agree about that, too.
I think that the leaf-network admin conveniences permitted by NATs has
long been ignored by the IETF community.
In general, we have architecturally ignored too many of the boundary
issues between independent environments. And I really like the use of
the term "tussle" points to refer to these; it strikes me as a really
key perspective on their role.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
+1.408.246.8253
dcrocker a t ...
www.brandenburg.com
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf