[134660] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NIST IPv6 document
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Smith)
Sat Jan 8 20:10:27 2011
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2011 11:39:38 +1030
From: Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
To: "Robert E. Seastrom" <rs@seastrom.com>
In-Reply-To: <867hegq5fl.fsf@seastrom.com>
Cc: Joe Greco <jgreco@ns.sol.net>, nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 07:11:42 -0500
"Robert E. Seastrom" <rs@seastrom.com> wrote:
>
> "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?
>
If you define a new protocol version as one that means devices with
older protocol generations of firmware/software may not interoperate
reliably with devices with new protocol generations of
firmware/software, then IPv4 as we know it today is probably at least
"IPv7" - address classes was a generational change requiring
software/firmware updates (compare addressing in rfc760 verses rfc791),
as was classful+subnets and then CIDR.
Regards,
Mark.
