Re: IPv8 / BGP8 / CF

Dear Mr. Thain,

Thank you for sharing your work and perspective with the community.

The continuous evolution of internet technologies is of great importance 
for network operators, and contributions that aim to address structural 
limitations are always valuable for discussion. In this context, your 
efforts regarding IPv8, BGPv8, and the associated mechanisms such as 
Cost Factor (CF) and “Sun Tzu” are certainly noteworthy and merit 
careful technical evaluation.

 From an operational standpoint, it is widely recognized that the 
limitations of IPv4 necessitate long-term solutions. While IPv6 has been 
positioned as the primary successor, ongoing discussions around 
alternative approaches can provide useful insights, particularly in 
terms of routing efficiency, scalability, and trust modeling between 
networks.

Your proposal appears to introduce a different perspective by 
integrating routing intelligence with addressing, and by attempting to 
redefine how operators evaluate path reliability and cost. These are 
important considerations, especially for large-scale and 
performance-sensitive environments.

That said, for such an approach to gain broader acceptance, aspects such 
as interoperability with existing infrastructure, transition mechanisms, 
operational complexity, and real-world deployment feasibility would be 
critical areas to further elaborate on.

Thank you again for bringing this topic forward. I look forward to 
seeing further developments and technical discussions around your proposal.

Kind regards,
Volkan Salih

29.04.2026 22:03 tarihinde Jamie Thain via NANOG yazdı:
> Hi All,
>
> My name is Jamie Thain I'm the creator of IPv8. It's not a hoax.
>
> I joined this list because, as part of IPv8, I am creating a BGPv8. Inside
> BGPv8, two new protocols CF (Cost Factor), weigh cost factors along the
> routes to produce a better metric. It's a hybrid of EIRGP mixed with BGP to
> create better engineering results.
>
> I also as part of CF created Sun Tzu which is the protocol that watches CF
> and gives you a CF score of reliability.  Do I trust my partnership with
> you?
>
> Now, beyond an on-slaught of IPv8 is stupid, IPv6 solves every problem,
> etc, etc. That's not my discussion point. My point isn't "should I even
> propose IPv8" my point is what would be the best result for operators?
>
> I believe that since IPv8 solves the duopoly problem, it will replace
> IPv4.
>
> So the things to know, IPV8 is NOT a 64 bit addressing system.
>
> It is a 32 bit routing system with a 32 bit addressing system.
>
> A Routing Number = ASNs plus others.
>
> 8.8.8.8 would become 15169.8.8.8.8
>
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-thain-ipv8-02.html
> <https://l.shortlink.es/l/3ae384c1b8e2eb92749595407c5cf9b87ea3372a?u=12457652>
>
>
> So each ASN in the world will have 3 Billion available addresses.
>
> There is a specially reserved group of internal ASN 127.x.x.x so each corp,
> org, has 16 Million areas of 3 Billion addresses, to replace 10.x.x.x and
> 100.64.x.x.x
>
> I'd appreciate your thoughts on it
>
> Jamie
> _______________________________________________
> NANOG mailing list
> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/KPDE4FNBRLQYZOVF5FUAAGJCBSKNS42Q/
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/RPMHVWTAW6T5CLXLTHSTJVEEV2XYAJG2/