Perhaps beating a horse that has long left the gate, since I'm responding to a
note earlier than the one I already responded to... But this issue really needs
to be settled carefully, IMO, and the modern renditions about this period of
time are typically off the mark:
On 10/8/2010 6:47 AM, Steve Crocker wrote:
There simply wasn't a technically feasible plan on the table for co-existence
and intercommunication of IPv4 and IPv6 networks.
In addition to working our way through the IPv6 adoption and co-existence
process, I think it would be useful to do a little soul-searching and ask
ourselves if we're so smart, how come we couldn't design a next generation IP
protocol and work out a technically viable adoption and co-existence
strategy.
Bob Hinden and I chaired a working group that was answering your question BEFORE
IPv6 was adopted and while there were a number of very different proposals.
The community chose to drop the work and ignore the issue for 10 or 15 years.
It happens that Deering's proposal came out of participation in our working
group, muttering something like "all this transition stuff is fine, but when
it's done, what we'll be left with will be ugly." So he designed his elegant IP
enhancement.
One bit of work that came out of the group was IPAE. More generally, it's
interesting to review documents of the competing proposals and note quite a few
references to transition:
<http://www.sobco.com/ipng/internet-drafts/index.html>
My point, here, is that the failures here were ones of goals, priorities and
management, not technology. Quite simply, we did not pay attention to larger
issues such as market incentives and adoption barriers.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf