This makes no sense at all. The notation can basically be anything you want - you could, if you wanted, invent a new notation for IPv4 or IPv6 right now.
What actually matters is the packet format.
You cannot make it backwards compatible because it is impossible to expand the IP header's address space without it becoming unparseable to existing network equipment.
"Ah" you say, "but we could put the extra bits after the end of what is basically an IPv4 packet"
Well no, you can't do that either because it would require executing a global seizure of existing IPv4 space and reorganising the entirety of the IPv4 internet into a hierarchical manner where your "IPv7" extra bits can be processed prior to the final destination.
IPv6 works fine and is well-designed. Hardware and software implementations have been in-production for decades now; Google alone see 30% of their total traffic over v6.
Fundamentally, support of any network protocol is subject to Internet participants having compatible kit; x86-64 wasn't immune to this; if you didn't buy the chips, you couldn't use the software. The reason it actually won is that the Itanium architecture was completely different and resorted to translating x86 instructions which, unsurprisingly, ran like treacle and never made it to the consumer market either.
The idea of inventing yet another internet protocol is patently absurd when you consider it would require yet more upgrades across the globe to hardware and software in order to support it.
The idea that there are already devices out there designed for a new protocol was considered an advantage of the TUBA protocol to replace IPv4 before v6 was chosen:
"The reviewers generally felt that the most important thing that TUBA has offers is that it is based on CLNP and there is significant deployment of CLNP-capable routers throughout the Internet." [0]
What actually matters is the packet format.
You cannot make it backwards compatible because it is impossible to expand the IP header's address space without it becoming unparseable to existing network equipment.
"Ah" you say, "but we could put the extra bits after the end of what is basically an IPv4 packet"
Well no, you can't do that either because it would require executing a global seizure of existing IPv4 space and reorganising the entirety of the IPv4 internet into a hierarchical manner where your "IPv7" extra bits can be processed prior to the final destination.
IPv6 works fine and is well-designed. Hardware and software implementations have been in-production for decades now; Google alone see 30% of their total traffic over v6.
Fundamentally, support of any network protocol is subject to Internet participants having compatible kit; x86-64 wasn't immune to this; if you didn't buy the chips, you couldn't use the software. The reason it actually won is that the Itanium architecture was completely different and resorted to translating x86 instructions which, unsurprisingly, ran like treacle and never made it to the consumer market either.
The idea of inventing yet another internet protocol is patently absurd when you consider it would require yet more upgrades across the globe to hardware and software in order to support it.