From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Dumazet Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re:_=e7=ad=94=e5=a4=8d:_ANNOUNCE:_Enhanced_IP_v1.4?= Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 06:02:30 -0700 Message-ID: <4d9e164d-58e3-caa0-a378-b9681eefa9d7@gmail.com> References: <20180602055717.GB17899@1wt.eu> <330e58f3-61d3-6abc-4f7c-1726e0ce852d@enhancedip.org> <20180604043426.GB11775@1wt.eu> <042801d3fbc9$02818fc0$0784af40$@pku.edu.cn> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: 'Linux Kernel Network Developers' To: =?UTF-8?B?UEtVLuWtmeaWjA==?= , 'Willy Tarreau' , 'Eric Dumazet' Return-path: Received: from mail-pf0-f194.google.com ([209.85.192.194]:45271 "EHLO mail-pf0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751769AbeFDNCc (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jun 2018 09:02:32 -0400 Received: by mail-pf0-f194.google.com with SMTP id a22-v6so2794796pfo.12 for ; Mon, 04 Jun 2018 06:02:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <042801d3fbc9$02818fc0$0784af40$@pku.edu.cn> Content-Language: en-US Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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.