[ih] fragmentation (Re: Could it have been different? [was Re: vm vs. memory])

[jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)]

    > From: Dave Crocker

    > The original mandate was for more address space.  All the other
    > 'features' that were attempted went beyond that mandate.
    > This was mere scope creep. Whether because of second system syndrome or
    > a failure to sufficiently feel the urgency of getting something fielded
    > and working sooner rather than later, I don't know.

How ironic. I felt at the time (and said so, vociferously, to the entire
community) that IPv6 was way too small/simple a change.

My reasoning was two-fold:

- If you wanted to get it deployed, it had to have major new capabilities as
incentives. With simply "more addresses", it was totally clear that IPv4+NAT
gave most of that, at an incredibly lower cost.

- If you're going to do an upgrade to a massive, world-wide system, that
upgrade ought to do as much as possible, because one doesn't often get a
chance to do something like that.

Oh well.

   Noel