Re: IPv8 / BGP8 / CF

Jamie Thain via NANOG <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.org.operators.nanog
Message-ID <CAGPjif8ZMvQELuMwxhg=da1xfORa_VuOPOOjTZy4sujqR-EeHw@mail.gmail.com>
Mikael

And what isn't backwards compatible if you know of something. I'm all ears.

Jamie

On Sat., May 2, 2026, 6:18 a.m. Mikael Abrahamsson, <[email protected]>
wrote:

> On Sat, 2 May 2026, Jamie Thain wrote:
>
> > Ipv10 Was A dual stack idea.
>
> Everything that isn't IPv4 will be a new stack. This was realised already
> in the 90s, and that's why we have IPv6 that's now close to 30 years into
> its deployment. Adding another stack in the mix won't help.
>
> If you would have done what you're doing back in mid 90s, it might have
> helped. You're 3 decades too late.
>
> > Again since you can't do the analysis steps then just send me a tape
> > recording.
>
> There is nothing to analyze. You're proposing something that isn't
> backwards compatible, and you don't seem to understand this is what you're
> proposing. Same as IPv10 guy.
>
> So start implementing, you might understand it then.
>
> --
> Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [email protected]
>
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/Z4YOGRDCPBOG5SGSQPC4A3FDICSYLJYB/
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.