> 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@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf