From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?utf-8?B?UEtVLuWtmeaWjA==?= Subject: =?utf-8?Q?=E7=AD=94=E5=A4=8D:_ANNOUNCE:_Enhanced_IP_v1.4?= Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 13:58:05 +0800 Message-ID: <042801d3fbc9$02818fc0$0784af40$@pku.edu.cn> References: <20180602055717.GB17899@1wt.eu> <330e58f3-61d3-6abc-4f7c-1726e0ce852d@enhancedip.org> <20180604043426.GB11775@1wt.eu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Cc: "'Linux Kernel Network Developers'" To: "'Willy Tarreau'" , "'Eric Dumazet'" Return-path: Received: from hwp1.icoremail.net ([139.162.50.94]:58134 "HELO hwp1.icoremail.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750731AbeFDF7B (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jun 2018 01:59:01 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20180604043426.GB11775@1wt.eu> Content-Language: zh-cn Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, Jun 03, 2018 at 03:41:08PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > On 06/03/2018 01:37 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: > > > This is not an inconsequential mechanism that is being proposed. It's > > a modification to IP protocol that is intended to work on the > > Internet, but it looks like the draft hasn't been updated for two > > years and it is not adopted by any IETF working group. I don't see how > > this can go anywhere without IETF support. Also, I suggest that you > > look at the IPv10 proposal since that was very similar in intent. One > > of the reasons that IPv10 shot down was because protocol transition > > mechanisms were more interesting ten years ago than today. IPv6 has > > good traction now. In fact, it's probably the case that it's now > > easier to bring up IPv6 than to try to make IPv4 options work over the > > Internet. > > +1 > > Many hosts do not use IPv4 anymore. > > We even have the project making IPv4 support in linux optional. I guess then Linux kernel wouldn't be able to boot itself without IPv4 built in, e.g., when we only have old L2 links (without the IPv6 frame type)...