[ih] The story of BGP?

[Paul Vixie]

John Curran wrote:
> On Feb 8, 2013, at 7:14 PM, Craig Partridge <craig at aland.bbn.com> wrote:
>> This doing it right long term versus doing something that solved an immediate
>> need issue shows up repeatedly in IETF behavior the period 1989-1994 or so.
>> Routing was one.  Network Management was another.  8-bit Email nearly got
>> wrapped around the axle too.
>
> "IPv4 to IPng" has definitely earned a spot on that list; we solved the 
> apparent immediate need, and decided not to undertake a loc-id split nor 
> variable/path-based locators.  I probably could live with this tradeoff
> for getting it done fast, but we actually didn't get it done, instead 
> leaving transition out of the spec for the next generation and not even 
> getting any actual backward compatibility with IPv4 as a result.
>
> If we're not going to "do it right for the long-term", it's kinda important
> that we nail getting the "immediate" solution right...

the reason, in 1996, why we didn't put dnssec on its own port number,
and fix all of the other crud that was wrong on udp/53, is that we
wanted it to be done before 2000. if we'd known we had sixteen years to
work with, we'd've cut deeper earlier.

paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20130208/a6340158/attachment.htm>