IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IETF context]

"Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com> Tue, 02 November 2021 22:10 UTC

Return-Path: <sob@sobco.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71A963A0DFE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Nov 2021 15:10:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.917
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, PDS_RDNS_DYNAMIC_FP=0.001, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.982, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4UhztKvKukA7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Nov 2021 15:10:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sobco.sobco.com (173-166-5-71-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.166.5.71]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EC373A0DF2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Nov 2021 15:10:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.50.224] (173-166-5-67-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.166.5.67]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 41263D2061E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Nov 2021 18:10:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.7\))
Subject: Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IETF context]
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2021 18:10:09 -0400
References: <37b299c8-e821-07e5-6240-68fb9d1ca137@gmail.com> <ADBD9121-758D-46D9-BD3D-D32098B89895@gmail.com>
To: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <ADBD9121-758D-46D9-BD3D-D32098B89895@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <4108B7BF-8CE0-484A-86E2-AEE8D41D828C@sobco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/-Q0LvtOxviWBfwDmySDNy8wrqLY>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2021 22:10:16 -0000

some people thought that and others strongly did not 

see https://www.sobco.com/ipng/big_ten/big_ten_packet_format.txt for one of the final proposals

Scott

> On Nov 2, 2021, at 5:58 PM, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> I believe that it was the 20 byte GOSIP address that made the 16 byte IPv6 address thinkable.
> 
> The address architecture was highly flexible and you could have used almost any length you wished, and the forwarders could support multiple address families concurrently.
> 
> Stewart

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email