> So you're OK with throwing away a perfectly fine and proven internet protocol which has survived for several decades, on a vague notion you have that "it's pr

> So you're OK with throwing away a perfectly fine and proven internet protocol which has survived for several decades, on a vague notion you have that "it's probably not that cache-friendly anyway". Don't do straw men, please. I said that it's not as big an issue as the author said it was. Nothing more, nothing less. > Reduced performance. Increased latency. Increased complexity. Increased attack-vector size. But indeed: so what? Not that much increased complexity in most cases. But the performance is a potentially good argument. The author should have used that instead.