On 03.11.21 09:14, Masataka Ohta wrote:
While *perhaps* SIPP shared some principles with Pip I don't think that either the addressing or routing architecture was one of them. My recollection was that the 128 bit address came to be because of concerns that we'd end up having to do All Of This *again* if there were a shortage. Nobody wanted that, and so we ended up with 128 bits. That wasn't the only reason: the idea of doing away with ARP and permitting some amount of auto-configuration based on the MAC address had its appeal. You can say that IPv6 was the result of committee thinking, and I would probably agree, but I'm not sure what the alternative would be. After all, politics begin in a room with more than one person.Scott O. Bradner wrote:see https://www.sobco.com/ipng/big_ten/big_ten_packet_format.txt > for one of the final proposalsIt says: This document attempts to borrow the best from all of the existing IPng proposals (CATNIP, SIPP, TUBA). which is, as all the real engineers know, the surest way to lose, though politicians think it the best compromise. It should also be noted that SIPP is already a union of SIP and PIP, though Paul Francis, who proposed PIP, was, in the face of SIPP, saying "PIP is dead". So, SIPP was developed highly politically, though its address is still 64bit long.
You can *somewhat* follow the development of Pip in particular at the 24th through 27th IETF meetings. I say, “somewhat” because even by the 24th IETF, Paul had evolved his ideas (the sign of a good engineer). I just can't find good earlier references.
Eliot
Attachment:
OpenPGP_0x87B66B46D9D27A33.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
