On 2006-07-31 16:34:27 +0100, "Doctor Drivel" said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message ...

One version split it into the 7 layer OSI stack, when it looked as if
OSI was going to be the way forward, which it was and should have been.

Another blunder. You seem not to know the difference between the OSI
*model* and the ISO *stack*.

Matt, you haven't a clue. I have had this with you a long time ago and
it was clear you didn't have a clue about OSI.

Actually, you just demonstrated very clearly that the boot is on the
other foot.


You don't know the difference between OSI and ISO. That is clear.

Boot on other foot or foot in mouth? I think you've managed both here
quite well.



The ISO protocol stack never really stood a realistic chance of broad
adoption. That became apparent as early as the early to mid 80s.

Balls Matt. It was in vogue and was heavily funded until the w.w.w. came in.

No it wasn't. There was never any realistic likelihood of widespread
ISO protocol deployment. The bureaucratic standards committees knocked
most of the nails into its coffin.




Then an inferior TCP/IP was adopted which didn't have enough scope
for all the addresses, as it was a cobbled together improvise in the
first place.

That is also rubbish. Use of RFC1918 address space, the handing back
to the registries of large unused blocks of address space and classless
interdomain routing have meant that there is not a short to medium term
issue with IP version 4 address space.

Deployment of IP version 6 is happening but is not of the highest
priority for carriers and ISPs in most parts of the world.