Re: Variable length internet addresses in TCP/IP: history

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



The word alignment issue was very strong and the router people had considerably more influence than the host folks.  I tried to propose variable length addressing using four bit nibbles in August 1974 and I got no traction at all.

Steve

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 14, 2012, at 6:31 PM, Bob Braden <braden@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 2/13/2012 7:53 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>>     >  From: Brian E Carpenter<brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx>
>> 
>>     >  The design error was made in the late 1970s, when Louis Pouzin's advice
>>     >  that catenet addresses should be variable length, with a format prefix,
>>     >  was not taken during the design of IPv4.
>> 
>> Ironically, TCP/IP had variable length addresses put in _twice_, and they were
>> removed both times! (You can't make this stuff up! :-)
> Noel,
> 
> You probably remember this, but...
> 
> Within the ARPA-funded Internet research program that designed IP and TCP, Jon Postel and
> Danny Cohen argued strenuously for variable length addresses. (This must have been
> around 1979. I cannot name most of the other 10 people in the room, but I have
> a clear mental picture of Jon, in the back of the room, fuming over this issue. Jon believed
> intensely in protocol extensibility.)
> 
> However, Vint Cerf, the ARPA program manager, rules against variable length addresses and
> decreed the fixed length 32 bit word-aligned addresses of RFC 791. His argument was that
> TCP/IP had to be simple to implement if it were to succeed (and survive the juggernaut
> of the ISO OSI protocol suite).
> 
> System programmers of that day were familiar with word-aligned data
> structures with fixed offsets, and variable length addresses seemed to be (and in fact
> would be) harder to program and would make packet dumps harder to interpret.
> 
> It was a political as much as a technical judgment, and Vint may have been right ... we
> can never know. We do know that IP eventually succeeded and OSI failed, but it
> was a near thing for awhile. Of course, there were other factors in the success
> of IP, such as Berkeley Unix.
> 
> It is to be noted that when it came time to define IPv6 some 20 years later, the IETF
> stuck with fixed length internet addresses.
> 
> Bob Braden
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]