On Sun, Nov 07, 2004 12:00:09PM -0500, Noel Chiappa allegedly wrote:
> From: Dave Crocker <dhc2(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
>> *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? Look, I'm not
saying there wasn't concern about address space usage rates, and eventual
exhaustion - clearly there was.
(And - and how ironic is this - one of the *earliest* references to comlete
address space exhaustion was in a presentation *I* gave at the 19th IETF, in
December 1990, at Boulder, Colorado - up until then we had mostly been
worried about the usage rate of class B's.)
However, my perception was that the IPng effort was started in response to
concerns raised by backers of CLNP, who did so in an attempt to push adoption
of CLNP. Would we have started work on IPng without those efforts? I don't
think so, but YMMV.
My recollection is that CLNP was not a motivator, it was recommended as
a bandaid, in reaction to the perceived problems. After we did that,
the CLNP proponents ran with it (and we got Kobe).
Remember the ROAD meeting where you said "CLNP is only slightly less
paleolithic than IP"?
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf