[e2e] Discrete IP - retake

Noel Chiappa jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Tue Sep 18 11:16:54 PDT 2012

    > From: Jon Crowcroft <jon.crowcroft at cl.cam.ac.uk>

    >> How would SIP have been any easier-to/better-at actually being
    >> deployed than IPv6 

    > No 8+8, loc/id split endless timesink debate would have happened with
    > SIP as there weren't enough bits

That had no effect on the deployability, though. To the extent that discussion
had any effect on IPv6 at all, it was purely on the schedule - and I'm not
even convinced it had much effect on that.

BTW, you probably recall this, but for those who weren't there, the switch
from 8 byte address size to 16 bytes had nothing to do with location/identity
separation, it was down to wanting to support Netware (I think it was - some
XNS derivative, anyway) addresses in IPv6. (The change was made at a meeting
in Chicago - if anyone care, I can probably dig up a reference.) 8+8 and all
the other location/identity separation schemes came later, once people
realized there were enough bits there.


More information about the end2end-interest mailing list