<p>No 8+8, loc/id split endless timesink debate would have happened with SIP as there weren't enough bits</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 18 Sep 2012 17:31, "Noel Chiappa" <<a href="mailto:jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu">jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
> From: Jon Crowcroft <<a href="mailto:Jon.Crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk">Jon.Crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk</a>><br>
<br>
> IPv6 is/was, in my view, another example of such a massive effort and<br>
> although it is flawed (it was the result of a compromise between two<br>
> better proposals which were each potentially much easier to deploy<br>
> ...<br>
> the solution was one of (in my opinion) the great failings of the IETF<br>
> when it agreed to combine them (a committee type decision) rather than<br>
> just do both and see which got out most. (the two, if you want ancient<br>
> history, were Steve's IP and Paul's IP .. the simple internet protocol<br>
> had 64 bit addresses and everything else prety miuch the same<br>
<br>
So I'm clearly missing something.<br>
<br>
How would SIP have been any easier-to/better-at actually being deployed than<br>
IPv6 (since as you yourself point out, it was basically smaller addresses<br>
and "everything else prety much the same")?<br>
<br>
Noel<br>
</blockquote></div>