[ih] Why is TUBA assigned IP version 9

[John Day]

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.

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.

The early IAB proposal skipped v6, which is looking more and more 
prescient in a weird sort of way.

Take care,
John



At 19:41 -0400 2010/09/21, Vint Cerf wrote:
>correct
>
>
>On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Ofer Inbar 
><<mailto:cos at aaaaa.org>cos at aaaaa.org> wrote:
>
>  > > Anyone know why TUBA was assigned IP version 9?
>>  >
>>  > 
>><<http://www.iana.org/assignments/version-numbers/version-numbers.xhtml>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 <<mailto:vint at google.com>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/20100921/2ce90d3e/attachment.htm>