Use of "ipv8" depricated some time back in '99 - Re: Comments on draft-thain-ipv8-01

Look for drafts around ipv8 back when.

The concensus was ipv8 was so abused that that number was off limits.

Which in part is why there is RFCs 1606 and 1607

So if you MUST persist on this work, you will have to use ipv10.....

Yes, I am a few weeks late....

;)

On 4/16/26 9:41 AM, 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