New Approach For Discussing IPng

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

I've been keeping clear of this thread, but I think Phill does remind us of an important point (hence the small change of subject):
On 19-Apr-21 15:42, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
...
> We keep having people coming along making these suggestions for IPv8, IPv10, etc. etc. and the inventors never once seem fit to ask what is so different about their proposal it can't be done in IPv6.

Back in 1994, it had become clear that deploying new header options in IPv4 across the Internet was in practice impossible, however well they worked in the lab. Extending IPv4 was therefore theoretically possible but impossible in reality. So we started IPv6.

27 years later, it has become clear that deploying new extension headers in IPv6 across the Internet is in practice impossible, however well they work in the lab.

There's little prospect that things would be different if we repeat the experiment.
 
> The whole point of the Internet is the narrow waist is really simple.

As it is written: "The function in question can completely and correctly be implemented only with the knowledge and help of the application standing at the endpoints of the communication system. Therefore, providing that questioned function as a feature of the communication system itself is not possible."

(What about deterministic networking? Indeed, that requires support as a feature of the communication system. Therefore, it will never happen across the Internet as a whole.)

    Brian