3 ms·
> You could have just extended the IPv4 header Sounds like IPv7, from year 1993: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1475 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc
by quectophoton 2y ago
> You could have just extended the IPv4 header
Sounds like IPv7, from year 1993: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1475 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1475
> I'm the opinion that we are slow to adopt IPv6 since it's too different from IPv4
Doubt, seeing how IPv7 appeared around the same time as IPv6 (RFC1883, from year 1995) and we still don't see IPv7 anywhere.
To be fair, IPv7 seems to have been deprecated in 2012 (RFC6814). It had almost 20 years to catch up but, quoting the RFC, "IPv7 was never widely deployed".
- throw0101d 2y ago> Sounds like IPv7, from year 1993: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1475 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1475 The author(s) of IPv7 (TP/IX) 'abandoned' / altered it to CATNIP: * https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1707 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1707 This was put up for consideration for IPng, and compared with TUBA and SIPP: * https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1752 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1752 The general idea of SIPP(-16) was chosen (and tweaked) to be IPng, now called IPv6. The criteria needed for IPng candidates were: * https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1726 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1726