Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

[Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com>]

On 9/14/21 5:37 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> 8+8 came *MUCH* later than that, and really wasn't ready for prime 
> time.  The reason we know that is that work was the basis of LISP and 
> ILNP.  Yes, standing on the shoulders of giants.  And there certainly 
> were poor design decisions in IPv6, bundling IPsec being one.  But the 
> idea that operators were ignored?  Feh.
I wasn't there at actual meetings at the time but I find the notion that 
operators were ignored pretty preposterous too. There was a significant 
amount of bleed over between the two as I recall from going to 
Interop's. What incentive do vendors have to ignore their customers? 
Vendors have incentive to listen to customer requirements and abstract 
them to take into account things can't see on the outside, but to 
actually give the finger to them? And given how small the internet 
community was back while this was happening, I find it even more unlikely.

But Randy still hasn't told us what would have worked and why it would 
have succeeded.

Mike


> On 14.09.21 14:10, Randy Bush wrote:
> > and 8+8, variable length, ... just didn't happen, eh?
> >
> > the nice thing about revisionist history is that anybody can play.
> >
> > randy