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.

Reply via email to