From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom Herbert Subject: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IOetlOWkjTogQU5OT1VOQ0U6IEVuaGFuY2VkIElQIHYxLjQ=?= Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 07:56:36 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20180602055717.GB17899@1wt.eu> <330e58f3-61d3-6abc-4f7c-1726e0ce852d@enhancedip.org> <20180604043426.GB11775@1wt.eu> <042801d3fbc9$02818fc0$0784af40$@pku.edu.cn> <4d9e164d-58e3-caa0-a378-b9681eefa9d7@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: =?UTF-8?B?UEtVLuWtmeaWjA==?= , Willy Tarreau , Linux Kernel Network Developers To: Eric Dumazet Return-path: Received: from mail-qk0-f194.google.com ([209.85.220.194]:46150 "EHLO mail-qk0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752098AbeFDO4h (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jun 2018 10:56:37 -0400 Received: by mail-qk0-f194.google.com with SMTP id k86-v6so25113009qkh.13 for ; Mon, 04 Jun 2018 07:56:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4d9e164d-58e3-caa0-a378-b9681eefa9d7@gmail.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 6:02 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote= : > > > On 06/03/2018 10:58 PM, PKU.=E5=AD=99=E6=96=8C wrote: >> 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 b= uilt in, e.g., when we only have old L2 links (without the IPv6 frame type)= ... > > > > *Optional* means that a CONFIG_IPV4 would be there, and some people could= build a kernel with CONFIG_IPV4=3Dn, > > Like IPv6 is optional today. > > Of course, most distros will select CONFIG_IPV4=3Dy (as they probably se= lect CONFIG_IPV6=3Dy today) > > Do not worry, IPv4 is not dead, but I doubt Enhanced IP v1.4 has any chan= ce, > it is at least 10 years too late. There's also https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/05/30/internet_engineers_un= ited_nations_ipv6/. We're reaching the point where it's the transition mechnanisms that are hampering IPv6 adoption. Tom