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)...
