Vint Cerf, “father of the Internet”, is retiring • Hacker News Board

Re: Vint Cerf, “father of the Internet”, is retiring

#221

Post by tomhow » Tue, Jul 14, 2026, 8:04 AM UTC

jibal wrote: post #220

tomhow wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My intention was to be friendly, at least at the end. I characterize it as fulminating due to the use of capitalization (which is specifically against the guidelines), along with an overall belligerent tone. It’s just not a cutthroat enough topic to get too insistent about. We can discuss these things in a conversational style, which is what HN is meant to be for. Edit: I see from looking over your comments in the th…

Is capitalizing TFA, TCP/IP, URL, or ARPANET also against the rules? Hey just joking ... I had no idea that using capitalization for emphasis is against the guidelines ... I think it's quite a stretch to characterize it as "fulminating" or "bellerigent". In the future I will write known as ... I hope italics are not also against the guidelines. (Is my snark "belligerent"? I think it's just conversational.) > It’s jus…

We appreciate you. Thanks for your contributions here.

Re: Vint Cerf, “father of the Internet”, is retiring

#222

Post by linzhangrun » Tue, Jul 14, 2026, 8:13 AM UTC

Things like this always make me feel how young the computer industry is, and how fast it has developed.

Re: Vint Cerf, “father of the Internet”, is retiring

#223

Post by Hugsbox » Tue, Jul 14, 2026, 11:41 AM UTC

user3939382 wrote: post #153

Know him in real life. Don’t meet your heroes.

Why not? Everybody else seems to have really nice things to say about meeting him

Re: Vint Cerf, “father of the Internet”, is retiring

#224

Post by user3939382 » Wed, Jul 15, 2026, 12:28 AM UTC

Hugsbox wrote: post #223

user3939382 wrote: post #153

Know him in real life. Don’t meet your heroes.

Why not? Everybody else seems to have really nice things to say about meeting him

If anyone has a good reason to need to know they can email me.

Re: Vint Cerf, “father of the Internet”, is retiring

#225

Post by Hugsbox » Wed, Jul 15, 2026, 2:29 PM UTC

user3939382 wrote: post #224

Hugsbox wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? Everybody else seems to have really nice things to say about meeting him

If anyone has a good reason to need to know they can email me.

Emailed you because I'm quite curious

Re: Vint Cerf, “father of the Internet”, is retiring

#226

Post by Dagger2 » Thu, Jul 23, 2026, 7:15 PM UTC

bigcityslider wrote: post #173

ayewo wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your opinion, do you think Internet Protocol Version 8 (IPv8) [1] stands a chance to fix the mistakes of IPv6 after more than 20 years now? Or there is too much inertia for IPv8 to overcome to become a truly backwards compatible extension / superset of IPv4? Part of the reasons for the slow adoption of IPv6 was that it was never designed to be backwards compatible unlike IPv8. 1: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/dr…

That IPv8 draft has stuff like oauth in it that don't make sense. I put together an IPv5 proposal based on all the old ones. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48781622

All you've done there is reinvent v6 with a combination of dual stack, NAT64 and 6to4, plus add a flag day.

You haven't fixed any of the problems involved in deploying v6, and you added a step that was known 35 years ago to be impossible on the Internet. This isn't a useful contribution, it's just a waste of time that you could have spent on doing v6.

Re: Vint Cerf, “father of the Internet”, is retiring

#227

Post by Parodper » Sun, Jul 26, 2026, 8:36 AM UTC

throw0101d wrote: post #199

Parodper wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Doing this brings you close to OSI, which famously failed by being overcomplicated. We're slowly reinventing OSI, one step at a time: OSI had multiple sessions per transport connection (QUIC), 20 byte addresses (IPv6) and a directory system with public-key infrastructure (DANE, vCard, SSHFP, etc). It's a shame TUBA (CLNP + TCP) failed.

> It's a shame TUBA (CLNP + TCP) failed. See "The Recommendation for the IP Next Generation Protocol", §8.3 TUBA Reviews: * https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1752 The document explains why SIPP was chosen (with the tweak of 128-bit addresses instead of 64).

Very interesting, thanks. I like they even admit their own bias, that the main reason was that they didn't want another's protocol; except for the word alignment, all the other issues are solvable.