nanog mailing list archives

V6 still not supported


From: Daniel Karrenberg <dfk () ripe net>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 16:02:24 +0100

Full match with my recollection about the cause for this sub optimal outcome. Happens to the best of us.

One has to remember that at the time we did not consider it a forgone conclusion that the products of the IETF woukd be 
the foundation of the Net. 

Daniel (age 63, memory not totally unreliable yet)

---
Sent from a handheld device.

On 22. Mar 2022, at 13:46, Randy Bush <randy () psg com> wrote:

john,

fwiw your story matches what is left of my memory.  one nuance

That’s not to say that there wasn’t "IETF politics” involved, but
rather that such politics were expressed as enormous pressure to “make
a decision”

my take was that cidr had done a lot to relieve the immediate technical
pressure for the short term; but there was a deep fear that the industry
press was stirring a major poolpah about the end of the internet due to
ipv4 exhaustion.  i.e. a seriously flawed technical compromise was
pushed on us in reaction to a perception of bad press.

i have learned that, when i am under great pressure to DO SOMETHING,
it's time to step back, go make a cup of tea, and think.  the ietf did
not.  and here we are, a quarter of a century later, still trying to
clean up the mess.

randy


Current thread: