[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 27/10/2017 11:36, Paul Vixie wrote:
> Dave Crocker wrote:
>> ...
>> The original mandate was for more address space. All the other
>> 'features' that were attempted went beyond that mandate.
>> ...
> that word, "mandate," i don't think it means what you think it means.
> we were volunteers, who worked on what we found deserving of our time. 
> or we were employees, who worked on what our bosses said to work on. at 
> no time did we or our families or our employers sign a suicide pact 
> agreeing to spend the next 16 years of our lives working on a system 
> whose utility could only be judged in the future, but which looked 
> pretty awful in the moment.
> if the fragmentation differences between v4 and v6 were as you say a 
> form of scope creep, then i call foul, not on those engineers, but on 
> the paper pushing bureaucrats who killed TCPv6, which would have given 
> us renumberable connection endpoints. that is, if one was allowed, the 
> other should also have been.
> i was pushing for a simple expansion of the IP header so that we could 
> use source routing on all flows, to connect network 10 at each end, 
> through a series of tubes, really, that had unique IP addresses, so that 
> the path would become the identity. the dns portion of this design 
> looked a lot like what was later called 8+8. i was shouted down, as was 
> mike o'dell, so i harken to your suspicion that anything simple would've 
> been rejected.

Did you take it as far as a BOF?

went to a BOF but was politely stomped on (IETF 29, Seattle).