From 78e7b1268dcb0fc069854d40a52396fe8e4352a0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Brian E Carpenter Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2023 15:02:54 +1200 Subject: [PATCH] Clarified v7 usage, corrected Kobe (IETF->INET) --- 1. Introduction and Foreword/Why version 6.md | 23 ++++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/1. Introduction and Foreword/Why version 6.md b/1. Introduction and Foreword/Why version 6.md index 32fd10a..2d639ba 100644 --- a/1. Introduction and Foreword/Why version 6.md +++ b/1. Introduction and Foreword/Why version 6.md @@ -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 \[[RFC1606](https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1606)\].