From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: Enhanced IP v1.4 Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2018 15:41:08 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20180602055717.GB17899@1wt.eu> <330e58f3-61d3-6abc-4f7c-1726e0ce852d@enhancedip.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Willy Tarreau , Linux Kernel Network Developers To: Tom Herbert , Sam Patton Return-path: Received: from mail-pf0-f180.google.com ([209.85.192.180]:42545 "EHLO mail-pf0-f180.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751201AbeFCWlL (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Jun 2018 18:41:11 -0400 Received: by mail-pf0-f180.google.com with SMTP id p14-v6so14998182pfh.9 for ; Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:41:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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.