<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: [ih] Why is TUBA assigned IP version
9</title></head><body>
<div>There were more than 4. I can't remember but who was the
strange guy with the v8? Vaguely remember he was from
Naperville, either Bell Labs or Fermilab connection. It was
distinctly an outlier.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>But right, 6 was initially skipped and then went back and used
it.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>At 21:15 -0400 2010/09/21, Vint Cerf wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>there were at least 4 candidates for IPng
as I recall so this could account for assigning IPv6, IPv7, IPv8 and
IPv9 but on final agreement, this left only the "next"
unused protocol id, IPv6 to be assigned officially.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 9:03 PM, John Day
<<a href="mailto:jeanjour@comcast.net">jeanjour@comcast.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote>I have a recollection that the IAB had recommended a v7
prior to the IPng process, and there was some strange proposal by an
even stranger person that had laid claim to v8, so v9 would have been
next in line.</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<blockquote>If Ofer's recollection (?) is correct, there were other
proposals and so some numbers must be missing some place for that
story to be correct.</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<blockquote>The early IAB proposal skipped v6, which is looking more
and more prescient in a weird sort of way.</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<blockquote>Take care,</blockquote>
<blockquote>John</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<blockquote>At 19:41 -0400 2010/09/21, Vint Cerf wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>correct<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Ofer Inbar <<a
href="mailto:cos@aaaaa.org">cos@aaaaa.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote>> > Anyone know why TUBA was assigned IP version
9?<br>
> ><br>
> > <<a
href=
"http://www.iana.org/assignments/version-numbers/version-numbers.xhtml"
>http://www.iana.org/assignments/version-numbers/version-numbers.xhtml</a
>><br>
> ><br>
> > Wouldn't the mere use of TUBA obviate the need for an IP
version number<br>
> > assignment?<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>Vint Cerf <<a
href="mailto:vint@google.com">vint@google.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> We assigned numbers temporarily but v6 was the next in
"line" after v5 was<br>
> abandoned. V<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>To clarify, what I recall is that the various candidates
for "IP next<br>
generation" were each assigned a version number (arbitrarily?)
before<br>
we knew which would be chosen, and the final choice - which turned
out<br>
to be a hybrid - then got v6. For years we were talking about
"IPng".<br>
-- Cos</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
</body>
</html>