> This way of framing the problem is weird to me. Markets are not handed to us by the Gods, we put them in place because some of us think they are a good way to solve problems.
Markets exist no matter what. I’m speaking of markets in the economical sense, not a concrete “exchanging things for money”. Look up the phrase “market of ideas” to get a better feel for what I’m talking about.
> Not nearly as pragmatic as NAT.
You are proving my point. A solution that works good enough has immense momentum because the people that care to change are dwarfed by the people who don’t want to bother. IPv6 has a pretty solid sales pitch for ISPs (CGNAT is painful to scale, manage, etc), but they don’t have any say. It’s server admins that need to drop V4 to bring any forced change... and they can’t do that without losing visitors.
> I'm just pointing out that there might be psycho-social reasons for the non adoption of the OSI model by the network community. I could be wrong of course and I'm happy to read opposing thoughts on the matter.
It didn’t offer any clear upside worth the complexity. The shared l4/l3 with TCP/IP means people can easily use the OSI model between two hosts if they want. If the OSI model was actually better for writing software, it would be widespread already.
Markets exist no matter what. I’m speaking of markets in the economical sense, not a concrete “exchanging things for money”. Look up the phrase “market of ideas” to get a better feel for what I’m talking about.
> Not nearly as pragmatic as NAT.
You are proving my point. A solution that works good enough has immense momentum because the people that care to change are dwarfed by the people who don’t want to bother. IPv6 has a pretty solid sales pitch for ISPs (CGNAT is painful to scale, manage, etc), but they don’t have any say. It’s server admins that need to drop V4 to bring any forced change... and they can’t do that without losing visitors.
> I'm just pointing out that there might be psycho-social reasons for the non adoption of the OSI model by the network community. I could be wrong of course and I'm happy to read opposing thoughts on the matter.
It didn’t offer any clear upside worth the complexity. The shared l4/l3 with TCP/IP means people can easily use the OSI model between two hosts if they want. If the OSI model was actually better for writing software, it would be widespread already.