> From: "Christian Huitema" <huitema(_at_)windows(_dot_)microsoft(_dot_)com>
> The issue of IP address exhaustion had already been debated on several
> The proposal in 1992 to base an IPng on CLNP was pretty much a
> continuation of these discussions, and it did indeed come in quite
> early in the process.
Yes, and the chief "selling point" people were using to push CLNP was....
larger addresses. And when the IETF wasn't thrilled about adopting OSI
protocols, they set up the IPng process, which picked.... IPv6.
So I think my orginal messages (that IPv6 exists because of a previous round
of concern about IPv4 address exhaustion, which was used by the proponents of
yet another protocol that was going to "replace" IPv4 to push for their
protocol's adoption) was right on target.
Ietf mailing list