[ih] Why is TUBA assigned IP version 9

[Vint Cerf]

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.




On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 9:03 PM, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net> wrote:

>  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 <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/b334e5f9/attachment.htm>