[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <042801d3fbc9$02818fc0$0784af40$@pku.edu.cn>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 13:58:05 +0800
From: PKU.孙斌 <bswen@....edu.cn>
To: "'Willy Tarreau'" <w@....eu>,
"'Eric Dumazet'" <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: "'Linux Kernel Network Developers'" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: 答复: ANNOUNCE: Enhanced IP v1.4
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)...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists