Re: Internet without entrenched factions?

On May 14, 2026, at 11:35 PM, Ole Troan via Internet-history <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> One thing ILNP is not good at is network-based multi-homing. Allowing the network to do the path selection. I.e. rewrite locators at the network edge.
> 
> The current NAT based solution does actually solve that problem well (while creating others). The entrenched part of the IETF can of course not accept that, because it would undermine their whole “value-system”.
> 
> Back to history. IPv6 should have had identifier/locator split from the start. I wasn’t there, but I understood it was close with Mike O’Dell’s 8+8 and GSE proposals? Anyone who can shed more light on what happened and why that path was not chosen?
> 
> Ole
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> -
> Unsubscribe: https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history

I wasn’t involved, but the issue was debated on the big-internet <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/big-internet/> and sipp <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sipp/> lists during the 1990s.  Search for ‘8+8’. 

--gregbo

-- 
Internet-history mailing list
[email protected]
https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
-
Unsubscribe: https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history