On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 6:02 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.duma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 06/03/2018 10:58 PM, PKU.孙斌 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 built >> 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=n, > > Like IPv6 is optional today. > > Of course, most distros will select CONFIG_IPV4=y (as they probably select > CONFIG_IPV6=y today) > > Do not worry, IPv4 is not dead, but I doubt Enhanced IP v1.4 has any chance, > it is at least 10 years too late.
There's also https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/05/30/internet_engineers_united_nations_ipv6/. We're reaching the point where it's the transition mechnanisms that are hampering IPv6 adoption. Tom
