On Feb 15, 2012, at 7:43 30PM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Steven Bellovin wrote:
Scott, if memory serves you and I wanted the high-order 2 bits of the IPng
address to select between 64, 128, 192, and 256-bit addresses -- and when
we couldn't get that we got folks to agree on 128-bit addresses instead of
64-bit, which is what had been on the table.
Thus, IPv6 was mortally wounded from the beginning.
The history is vastly more complex than that. However, this particular decision
was just about the last one the IPng directorate made before reporting back to
the IETF -- virtually everything else in the basic IPv6 design had already
been agreed-to. It was a long, painful effort, with a lot of debate over very
many of the points that have been discussed over and over again. I don't think
this was "the" wrong decision.
--Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf