mirror/becarpenter-book6
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/becarpenter/book6.git synced 2024-05-07 02:54:53 +00:00
Code Releases Activity

Clarified v7 usage, corrected Kobe (IETF->INET)

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Brian E Carpenter
2023-08-06 15:02:54 +12:00
committed by GitHub
parent ebb6421078
commit 78e7b1268d
1 changed files with 12 additions and 11 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

23
1. Introduction and Foreword/Why version 6.md
View File

@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ Some people ask why IPv4 went to version 6, leaping the next number.
This was _not_ related to the programmer's superstition where odd
numbers should be beta releases.
Maybe we should start by asking why IPv4 was version 4. Stated simply,
that was because version 0 was never used, and versions 1 through 3 were
that was because version 0 was never used, and versions 1 through 3
were assigned during the evolution from ARPANET to TCP/IP. So version 4
was the next number available for use in
[RFC791](https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791).
@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ assigned in "protocol numbers":
ST protocols never left an experimental phase, but for live experiments
on the early Internet, its own version number was needed. While (as far
as we know) there is no ST in used anywhere in the Internet today, its
as we know) there is no ST in use anywhere in the Internet today, its
version number is still assigned, so it would not make sense for the
__next generation IP__ to carry that number, so it was “skipped”. The
number 6 would only appear a few years later in an “Assigned numbers”
@ -99,22 +99,23 @@ Decimal Keyword Version References
```
Note that IANA had assigned numbers 6 through 9 for the then
“competitors” of what became IPv6. Number 7 was reserved for TP/IX
\[[RFC1475](https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1475)\], as they expected
ST version 2 would use number 6, which did not happen. _Brian: really? I
never heard that._ But unexpectedly, an "IPv7" proposal was announced
during IETF meeting in Kobe, Japan, 1992, by IAB members. There was no
“competitors” of what became IPv6. Number 7 was chosen for TP/IX
\[[RFC1475](https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1475)\], as its designer
expected ST version 2 would use number 6, which did not happen.
But unexpectedly, a different "IPv7" proposal was announced
during the Internet Society's INET conference in Kobe, Japan,
in June 1992, by IAB members. There was no
consensus among IETF engineers at that time about the new protocol, and
some IAB members proposed using ISO/OSI's CLNP - designating it as IPv7
despite the IANA assignment. This caused some discomfort in the Internet
without a formal IANA assignment. This caused some discomfort in the Internet
community and became known in technical circles as the “Kobe incident”.
Numbers 8 and 9 were used by proposals that came to be merged into
IPv6's ultimate design. As the lowest number available after 4, and
already used in by same author's SIP, number 6 was kept for the first
already used by the same author's SIP, number 6 was kept for the first
official specification in
[RFC1883](https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1883). Therefore, do not
expect IP versions 7 or 8 in the future, nor even 9 that belongs to a
April fool's day joke
expect IP versions 7 or 8 in the future, nor even 9 that also belongs
to an April fool's day joke
\[[RFC1606](https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1606)\].
<!-- Link lines generated automatically; do not delete -->