Re: Comments on draft-thain-ipv8-01

I just started reading it until I got to this:

 > draft-thain-routing-protocols-00 BGP8, IBGP8, OSPF8, IS-IS8, CF

and that was enough.


If somebody really wants to use legacy software and their DNS server is 
also their NAT (usually is), they can have it map their IPv6 destination 
to a non-routable IPv4 address. Their software will get an A record with 
a 10.0.0.0/8 or something and when it sends to that address the NAT will 
translate it to the correct IPv6. And this whole arrangement can stay a 
dirty little secret between them and their gateway.


Thanks,

Caleb


On 16/04/2026 15:41, Andrew wrote:
> This was sent to me by … maybe a half dozen people.
>
> Is this some sort April Fools joke?
>
> It seems like, by adopting this whole model, we would gain:
> - Legacy applications can continue using IPv4 sockets (AF_INET and 32-bit address types) * but only if they use the system DNS resolver? *
> - We can continue using dot-decimal notation instead of scary hex digits
>
> In exchange, we need to force everyone to adopt:
> - new network stack in every OS
> - new DNS resolver in the OS which can manage prefixes for legacy applications (which is architecturally incompatible how resolving works on Linux)
> - significantly higher burdens on embedded devices to speak IP
> - new incompatible firewalls
> - new incompatible proxies
> - new incompatible attributes for any protocol which transfers IP addresses
> - new routing metric (which has not been used in any protocol before)
> - new incompatible OSPF
> - new incompatible IS-IS
> - new BGP AFI
> - new DNS record type
> - new address space for IANA+RIRs to manage
> - new access control protocol, which is unlike any protocol we have seen before
> - force the use of DHCP again, even though we finally have almost gotten rid of it
>
> Compared to IPv6, even if fully implemented into every OS and client and router, the proposed protocol would still lack sufficient address space -  if each ASN has one 32 bit address space, then an ISP who currently has a  v6 /20 would not have enough space to give customers more than a single address, so we are back to NAT again. It doesn’t look like any sort of prefix delegation is used for customer networks, so I guess it’s back to NAT again anyway?
>
> How quickly can we reject this?
>
> Andrew
>