RE: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

[Richard Irving <rirving () antient org>]

“In the early to mid 90's it was still a crap shoot of whether IP was
going to win (though it was really the only game in town for non-lan)
but by when I started at Cisco in 1998 it was the clear winner with
broadband starting to roll out”

</Lurk>

IP was the clear winner since the Clinton-Gore Initiative of 1991, as we called it in 1991. (History records this as 
the  “Gore Bill”, feel free to Google.) [ He invented the Internet, you know! 😊 ] at which time we began prototype 
conversion of non-DOD Government agencies to “The IP Paradigm”, till about 94-95, when the next phase was rollout to 
K-12 and Public libraries, as well as mainstream ISP’s.  This necessitated the birth of the NAP’s. These NAP’s were 
supposed to be -Private- sector, not Public. Many of us “Riding the Bill” left Public sector contracting to Private 
sector to facilitate this transition. (Hence the date of my ARIN-POC, actually just POC, ARIN didn’t exist yet) The 
debate in 95 was not “IP or not IP”, it was “Will your NAP be FDDI like the MAE’s, ATM, or even the LINX model of a 
GIGE switch. (Frame was already fading) “ While in private sector there may have been some doubt, the IP Juggernaut was 
well underway in Government by almost half a decade, and as they say “That is the sound of inevitability, Neo”, at that 
point.  IP was as “nailed to the wall” early to mid 90’s as Tony Li’s resignation was to his bosses door, at Cisco, a 
year or so, later. However, FWIW, the private sector had yet to hear the sound of the train. Many brand protocol 
loyalist fought IP adoption all the way until their favorite brand -adopted- it, so I understand your perspective.

FWIW, I miss being able to fit into my “No 53” Tee Shirt. ☹

Matter of fact, many of us missed the foreshadowing of the “woke” generation when we got in trouble for painting cross 
hairs on a backhoe for a NANOG Tee… it got “banned” for “possibly inciting violence against backhoe operators” .

:-*

<Lurk>

Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows

From: Michael Thomas<mailto:mike () mtcc com>
Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2021 3:52 PM
To: William Herrin<mailto:bill () herrin us>
Cc: nanog () nanog org<mailto:nanog () nanog org>
Subject: Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public


On 11/20/21 12:37 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 12:03 PM Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com> wrote:
> > Was it the politics of ipv6 that
> > this didn't get resolved in the 90's when it was a lot more tractable?
> No, in the '90s we didn't have nearly the basis for looking ahead. We
> might still have invented a new way to use IP addresses that required
> a block that wasn't unicast. It was politics in the 2000's and the
> 2010's, as it is today.

In the early to mid 90's it was still a crap shoot of whether IP was
going to win (though it was really the only game in town for non-lan)
but by when I started at Cisco in 1998 it was the clear winner with
broadband starting to roll out. It was also obvious that v4 address
space was going to run out which of course was the core reason for v6.
So I don't understand why this didn't get done then when it was a *lot*
easier. It sure smacks of politics.

Mike