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

[ih] fragmentation (Re: Could it have been different? [was Re: vm vs. memory])

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 5:43 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc2 at dcrocker.net> wrote:

> On 10/25/2017 6:42 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > ony li said that ipv6 was too little, too soon. this was a play on
> > words, because the usual complaint is "too little, too late". tony was
> > right, even moreso than i realized at the time. we specified a lot of
> > things that didn't work and had to be revised or thrown out -- because
> > we did not know what we needed and we thought we were in a hurry.
> ...
> This was mere scope creep.  Whether because of second system syndrome or
> a failure to sufficiently feel the urgency of getting something fielded
> and working sooner rather than later, I don't know.  But I suspect it
> was both.

As one of the authors of the IPng Requirements (RFC 1726), I'm going to risk
piping up here.  The requirements in RFC 1726 were for an IPv4 replacement
that scaled -- if you read RFC 1726 (and I just went back and did) it is
only requiring what we'd already achieved in IPv4 -- with the exception of
we'd like something that configured better than DHCP.

So Tony's closer to right.  We were so scared when we wrote that document
we only had a few years that we wrote remarkably conservative requirements.
(I'd actually pushed to be more ambitious and got shot down).

Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and
mailing lists.
For Raytheon business, please email: craig. <craig at bbn.com>
partridge at raytheon.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20171026/0dde7161/attachment.html>