> On 20210916, at 11:15, John Curran <jcur...@istaff.org> wrote:
>
> On 14 Sep 2021, at 3:46 AM, Eliot Lear <l...@ofcourseimright.com> wrote:
>> ….
>> There is no evidence that any other design choices on the table at the time
>> would have gotten us transitioned any faster, and a lot of evidence and
>> analysis that the exact opposite is more likely.
>
> Elliot -
>
> If by “design choices” you mean the criteria that we set forth for the new
> protocol (IPng), then that’s potentially true - it’s fairly challenging to
> hypothecate what impact different technical criteria would have had on the
> outcome.
>
> If by “design choices” you mean the tradeoffs accepted in selecting a
> particular candidate protocol and declaring victory, then I’d strongly
> disagree. I believe that we had the appropriate technical criteria for IPng
> (very nicely compiled and edited by Craig Patridge and Frank Kastenholz in
> RFC1726) and then made conscious decisions to disregard those very criteria
> in order to “make a decision” & “move forward.”
>
> All of the IPng proposals where completely deficient with respect to
> transition capabilities.
Would not have mattered: one has to upgrade a large portion of the
code/hardware present in the network anyway.
And ~1995 was a completely different time from 1998, or 2001 let alone 2021 in
number of devices and deployment; thus anything one would have guessed would
have been off.
The only thing that might have worked is a flag day, but unless some large org
sets that in the near future, we'll just have the very very slow death thing
that is happening and I bet that IPv4 will nicely outlive us all on this list
and the ones that where there when IPng started.
Greets,
Jeroen
