News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Reclaiming IPv4 Class E's 240.0.0.0/4 by quectophoton on Monday May 27, 2024 @05:53PM (#40495116)
> You could have just extended the IPv4 header

Sounds like IPv7, from year 1993: 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".

Re:Reclaiming IPv4 Class E's 240.0.0.0/4 by throw0101d on Tuesday May 28, 2024 @09:13AM (#40500426)
> Sounds like IPv7, from year 1993: 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

This was put up for consideration for IPng, and compared with TUBA and SIPP:

* 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