[134571] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NIST IPv6 document
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robert E. Seastrom)
Fri Jan 7 07:12:32 2011
To: "Kevin Oberman" <oberman@es.net>
From: "Robert E. Seastrom" <rs@seastrom.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2011 07:11:42 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20110106060142.44CC11CC41@ptavv.es.net> (Kevin Oberman's message
of "Wed, 05 Jan 2011 22:01:42 -0800")
Cc: nanog@nanog.org, Joe Greco <jgreco@ns.sol.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
"Kevin Oberman" <oberman@es.net> writes:
>> The next ship will be departing in a hundred years or so, advance
>> registration for the IPv7 design committee are available over there.
>
> Sorry, but IPv7 has come and gone. It was assigned to the TUBA proposal,
> basically replacing IP with CLNP. IPv8 has also been assigned. (Don't ask
> as it involved he who must not be named.)
In the grand tradition of list pedantry, I must correct both of these
statements. :-)
IPv7 was TP/IX, which I never really learned anything about (at least
nothing that I can remember) at the time.
IPv8 was PIP, which got merged with SIP to form SIPP which as I recall
evolved into IPv6. It had nothing to do with he who must not be
named, but you can't figure this out by googling IPv8 as all it
returns is a series of links to flights of fancy.
IPv9 was TUBA. Went down for political reasons, but in retrospect
perhaps wouldn't have been such a bad thing compred to the "second
system syndrome" design that we find ourselves with today (I know I'm
gonna take it on the chin for making such a comment, but whatever).
10-14 are unassigned, guess we'd better get crackin, eh?
-r
