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

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

 



Bob Braden wrote:
> 
> 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).

I'm quite OK with both, IPv4 fixed-length 32-bit addresses and
IPv6 fixed-length 128-bit addresses, and consider fixed-length
addresses reasonable.

What I really don't like is that IPv6 was not made to be transparently
backwards compatible (on the IPv4 address range), but instead a completely
different protocol that requires non-trivial translation IPv4<->IPv6.


One the one hand, the IETF was frowning upon NATs when they were
developed outside of the IETF.  But if you look at the IETFs
(lack of) migration plan, the translation that you need in order
to make old-IPv4 interoperate with new-IPv6, is actually worse than
an IPv4 NAT.


-Martin
_______________________________________________
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]