netdev - Re: 答复: ANNOUNCE: Enhanced IP v1.4

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CALx6S348s=_QZx_geCySN+duYANeMZZfbdzFzqj87r-q+O95sw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 4 Jun 2018 07:56:36 -0700
From:   Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:     PKU.孙斌 <bswen@....edu.cn>,
        Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 答复: ANNOUNCE: Enhanced IP v1.4

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 6:02 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.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