[ih] Why is TUBA assigned IP version 9

[Vint Cerf]

correct


On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Ofer Inbar <cos at aaaaa.org> wrote:

> > > Anyone know why TUBA was assigned IP version 9?
> > >
> > >   <
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/version-numbers/version-numbers.xhtml>
> > >
> > > Wouldn't the mere use of TUBA obviate the need for an IP version number
> > > assignment?
>
>
> Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> wrote:
> > We assigned numbers temporarily but v6 was the next in "line" after v5
> was
> > abandoned. V
>
> To clarify, what I recall is that the various candidates for "IP next
> generation" were each assigned a version number (arbitrarily?) before
> we knew which would be chosen, and the final choice - which turned out
> to be a hybrid - then got v6.  For years we were talking about "IPng".
>  -- Cos
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20100921/b0158c27/attachment.htm>