[ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"?

[Bernie Cosell]

On 13 Feb 2019 at 16:12, Jack Haverty wrote:

> I think what you're seeing is that the various people and groups working
> on "the Internet" in the 
> early times (80s) didn't have the same view of the goal. 
> The "let's experiment with new ideas for routing, protocols, congestion
> control, etc." crowd saw 32 
> bits as plenty for what they envisioned doing.  This would include a
> lot of the DARPA 
> "experimental" work.   I suspect Vint didn't want yet another major
> change to TCP/IP to halt other 
> experimental work in how to use the Internet for the year or two it
> would take to change all the 
> software again.

If that was true at the time, it is perhaps not surprising that the way things are 
the software is, essentially, unchangeable.  For good or ill.    Vint came to 
Roanoke to talk to some group [I don't remember something like the "21st 
century group" or something like that].   This was in something like 1995 or 1996, 
a mere 20+ years ago.  He said that IPv4 was going to implode and we would 
*have* to transition to IPv6 in a few years.   I've asked IPv6 advocates every few 
years since then what the plan is to cut over from v4 to v6.  I have no idea what 
the current plan is, but I'm still a skeptic: I'm out of it now, have been for a long 
time, but if I were still involved with the design and planning I wouldn't have a 
clue on how to get everybody using IPv6.   My mind boggles just thinking about 
all the systems that'd have to be changed, much less how to effect and coordinate 
the change.

I don't know what group is looking forward, thinking about the future of the 
Internet, but it feels like it an unstoppable ball that is rolling down the side of a 
mountain.

  /Bernie\

            Bernie Cosell
       bernie at fantasyfarm.com
-- Too many people; too few sheep --