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.
That is not quite what the minutes convey. The main argument behind CLNP
then was convergence, at a time when many believed that OSI protocols
were poised to develop and at a minimum lead to a "multi-protocol
Internet". This perception changed a lot in a few years, between 1990
and 1994, as OSI deployment stagnated and the Internet exploded.
Did the "OSI convergence" perception caused the IAB/IETF to be more
receptive to the arguments about address space exhaustion and routing
table explosion? Maybe in some people's mind, but they were a minority
-- the concerns were well shared. In any case, an important argument for
the proposals that lead to IPv6 was precisely to have none of the OSI
baggage. For better or worse, it was mostly defined as "just IPv4 with
larger addresses".
-- Christian Huitema
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf