[signa11]

> It seems that the biggest thing the TCP/IP folks got 'wrong' was the 32 bit address space, and even that small change is taking forever to be deployed.

i guess you are alluding to ipv6 here. and imho, ipv6 provides quite a large number of changes from vanilla ipv4. it is not just a much larger address space...

[jacquesm]

That is absolutely true but the main driver behind the replacement is the increased address space. None of the other changes seems to have been a driver at all.

So as far as the consumers go IPv4 is 'good enough' and if and when IPv6 will finally take over it will remain the de-facto world wide networking protocol used to power the internet for a very very long time.

Cisco attempting to drive a wedge between IPv4 and IPv6 in the midst of this (very very slow) transition seems like a very strange move to me, almost certainly bound to fail or in the end not replacing IPv4/IPv6 but maybe ending up as a transport layer underneath it (killing most of the advantages it would offer in the process).

And that's besides trying to replace TCP which would require re-writing/adapting of virtually every computer program active on the net today.

[tgflynn]

I don't know that they're trying to drive a wedge between IPv4 and IPv6. I would think that even NDN's supporters see it as a very long-term, post-IPv6 development.

I am surprised however to see Cisco supporting this. It's one thing to have some academic networking specialists writing papers about NDN, but for a major corporation to devote resources to a 10+ year development project with an unproven architectural basis strikes me as odd.

[takeda]

Cisco was involved with it since at least of 2012. They actually wrote software in the protocol as well. It was for video conference if I recall correctly.