[ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?

[Bradner, Scott]

the people that complained the most about variable length addresses were the host people
in particular Jim Bound

the router people (Tonl Li and the rest of the gang from Cisco for example) pushed hard for 
variable length

we did have a variable length proposal right at the end of the IPng process
see
	http://www.sobco.com/ipng/big_ten/big_ten_packet_format.txt
	http://www.sobco.com/ipng/big_ten/big_ten_address_format.txt
	and
	http://www.sobco.com/ipng/big_ten/big_ten_address_allocation.txt

but that did not achieve escape velocity

Scott

> On Aug 10, 2015, at 8:51 AM, Craig Partridge <craig at aland.bbn.com> wrote:
> 
>> Ultimately, the concerns about potential change control arguments with ITU 
>> resulted using CLNP's address format for IPv6, only with a fixed length. 
>> (Those dealing with virtualization today will curse loudly someday when they 
>> discover that we actively chose to undo existing, working variable length 
>> addressing in defining IPv6...)
> 
> As someone who may bear some responsibility (I'd have to dig through too
> much stuff to be sure)...
> 
> Remember that parsing variable length addresses was more expensive and that
> in the mid-1990s, computational power in routers was on the borderline of
> being insufficient to keep up with network bandwidth. At the time,
> projections were that the problem would become much worse before it
> became better.  So it seemed irresponsible (at least to those of us
> desperately trying to keep routers working) to use variable length addressing.
> Those projections about computing power were right, but the period of
> difficulty was much shorter than anticipated -- now routers have lots of
> computational power and variable length addresses would not be a problem.
> 
> Craig
> _______
> internet-history mailing list
> internet-history at postel.org
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.