[ih] IPv8...

[John Day]

How so?

Don’t you mean ES-IS?

Actually, By the early 80s, OSI had realized that embedding a lower layer address, e.g. a MAC address in the Network Address made it route-dependent and prevented multihoming. It as fine for hosts with only one interface, but not in general.  However, there were a lot of network layer people infatuated with the idea of doing it.

An address should be location-dependent and route-independent regardless of what layer it is in.

Take care,
John

> On Apr 19, 2026, at 11:40, Bob Hinden via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> Brian,
> 
>> On Apr 18, 2026, at 7:10 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On 19-Apr-26 12:40, Bob Hinden via Internet-history wrote:
>>> John,
>>>> On Apr 18, 2026, at 12:52 PM, John Levine via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> It appears that the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via Internet-history <geoff at iconia.com> said:
>>>>> your "*Conclusion*
>>>>> 
>>>>> The main reason for IPv6, and its only real reason for existence, was
>>>>> bigger addresses. The problems of coexistence were inevitable, and it was
>>>>> hard to find the best (or rather, least bad) solutions. Most of the
>>>>> difficulties of IPv6 implementation and deployment are not the result of
>>>>> the details of IPv6 design. ...
>>>> 
>>>> I agree although there were details that made it worse.  DHCPv6 wasn't until 2003, I gather
>>>> largely because the IPv6 crowd insisted that SLAAC solved all its problems, which it doesn't.
>>> The “IPv6 crowd” (if I can speak for them) did think that SLACC was an improvement for many devices and networks,
>> 
>> I recall that the "dentist's office scenario" (and I do mean scenario) was used to establish the need for SLAAC - we didn't think that dental nurses needed to learn how to manually configure IP addresses or DHCP servers. Rather, we thought that all devices that the dentist installed should just configure themselves, like Appletalk did. As Bob implies, we saw a significant difference between unmanaged (SLAAC) networks and managed (DHCP and SNMP) networks.
> 
> Also, SLACC is very similar to what ISO CLNP was doing at the time.     
> 
> Bob
> 
> 
>> 
>>  Brian
>> 
>>> but we always thought here was an important role for DHCPv6 in managed environments (and said so).   As far as I can tell, the only reason DHCPv6 was delayed was the that the DHCP working group went down some paths they later discarded and started over.
>>> Bob
>>>> 
>>>> The new approach to fragmentation doesn't work with anycast, as Geoff Huston has often
>>>> noted.  Dunno whether they could reasonably have forseen that, but it's still a problem for
>>>> large DNS systems.
>>>> 
>>>> R's,
>>>> John
>>>> -- 
>>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>>> -
>>>> Unsubscribe: https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
> 
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> -
> Unsubscribe: https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history