On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 07:11:42 -0500 "Robert E. Seastrom" <r...@seastrom.com> wrote:
> > "Kevin Oberman" <ober...@es.net> writes: > > >> The next ship will be departing in a hundred years or so, advance > >> registration for the IPv7 design committee are available over there. > > > > Sorry, but IPv7 has come and gone. It was assigned to the TUBA proposal, > > basically replacing IP with CLNP. IPv8 has also been assigned. (Don't ask > > as it involved he who must not be named.) > > In the grand tradition of list pedantry, I must correct both of these > statements. :-) > > IPv7 was TP/IX, which I never really learned anything about (at least > nothing that I can remember) at the time. > > IPv8 was PIP, which got merged with SIP to form SIPP which as I recall > evolved into IPv6. It had nothing to do with he who must not be > named, but you can't figure this out by googling IPv8 as all it > returns is a series of links to flights of fancy. > > IPv9 was TUBA. Went down for political reasons, but in retrospect > perhaps wouldn't have been such a bad thing compred to the "second > system syndrome" design that we find ourselves with today (I know I'm > gonna take it on the chin for making such a comment, but whatever). > > 10-14 are unassigned, guess we'd better get crackin, eh? > If you define a new protocol version as one that means devices with older protocol generations of firmware/software may not interoperate reliably with devices with new protocol generations of firmware/software, then IPv4 as we know it today is probably at least "IPv7" - address classes was a generational change requiring software/firmware updates (compare addressing in rfc760 verses rfc791), as was classful+subnets and then CIDR. Regards, Mark.
