Re: IPv8 / BGP8 / CF

Essentially your arguments boil down to :

"Some companies don't want to spend money to implement V6. My solution is a
new IP version 8, which would require EVERY company to spend money to
implement. This totally makes sense, don't you see?"

Not only are your technical proposals flawed, your logic is completely
backwards.

On Sat, May 2, 2026 at 3:27 AM Jamie Thain via NANOG <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Marco
>
> There is no point where shareholders will ask 'where is my ipv6 presence'
> they don't care.
>
> Dear Mr shareholder give me 2m dollars for an ipv6 presence.
>
> Shareholder what's not working
>
> CTO nothing
>
> Shareholder, you want 2m $ to fix something that's not broken -- and so we
> get to turn off what we have now and save a bunch of money.... THIS QUARTER
>
> CTO nope
>
> Sharholder : your fired.
>
> 🙂 And that's exactly why
>
> Jamie
>
> On Sat., May 2, 2026, 2:39 a.m. Mark Andrews via NANOG, <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
> > IPv4 only machines can reach IPv6 machines. It just requires a DNS46
> > implementation which was done as an experiment years ago and a CLAT with
> > address mappings configured from the DNS46.   This is known to not scale
> > well but there are very little truely IPv4 equipment these days.  It
> works
> > on the small scale.
> >
> > Now it would be nice if people would move to IPv6 sooner rather than
> later
> > but now it’s mostly getting people to turn it on rather than waiting for
> > equipment to support it.   It will get to the stage where shareholders
> will
> > start asking where is our IPv6 presence? Remember that everyone is paying
> > more for these IPv4 only sites. Your home ISP / cellular provider has to
> > charge you more to provide this backwards compatibility.  A line item on
> > the bill would make this clearer. Big ISPs aren’t turning off IPv6.  They
> > are turning off IPv4 towards the customer leaving IPv4 to be delivered
> via
> > IPv4AAS.
> >
> > --
> > Mark Andrews
> >
> > > On 2 May 2026, at 14:55, Marco Moock via NANOG <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Am 02.05.26 um 05:13 schrieb Jamie Thain via NANOG:
> > >> The issue is for corporate and the cloud, IPv6 is just as broken as
> > IPv4.
> > >> And no corporate is migrating go look.  Its been the next big thing in
> > >> Corporate networks for 20 years.
> > >
> > > If they are not willing to upgrade, they are also not willing to
> > implement any other new protocol, as this always means that IPv4 only
> > machines need to be changed, as you cannot make them able to reach non
> IPv4
> > machines without modifying them.
> > >
> > > All of that stuff has being discussed many times...
> > >
> > > --
> > > Gruß
> > > Marco
> > >
> > > Junk-Mail bitte an [email protected]
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > NANOG mailing list
> >
> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/2EKXGBLSTHXPUSME3ZEREOLD64DIPMDG/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NANOG mailing list
> >
> >
> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/KU543YXNZ5CT357EWVALU67EJS4QBT5L/
> _______________________________________________
> NANOG mailing list
>
> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/Y5ALPB5T42UFLDKYL3L2XRMM4SYWHM42/
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/TINMZBCVA3KPCO6TM6BUKNHAIKYJFBGN/