Re: IPv8 / BGP8 / CF

Exactly how do you intend to convince OS vendors to rebuild their network
stacks and network vendors to spin new silicon to implement IPv8 without at
least a working reference implementation?

jms

On Sat, May 2, 2026, 14:05 Jamie Thain <[email protected]> wrote:

> Justin,
>
> Because before you write a line of code you have to get it right, or near
> right.
>
> If you want to see good engineering watch from the "Earth to the Moon"
> Spider, how they built the lunar lander.
>
> So far I've had like 3 serious conversations about "this won't work" and
> each one has had me improve it. But "go make code" before we discuss what
> and how it should be, a DRAFT is actually when you want comments about the
> operation of it all.
>
> I'm not going to wait until I written 1m worth of code to figure something
> is wrong.
>
> IETF folks suggested to me, that I join Nanog to see how they might use
> it. IPv8 is not about address space.
>
> Jamie
>
>
> On Sat, May 2, 2026 at 11:12 AM Justin Streiner via NANOG <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I know of enterprises who are deploying v6.
>>
>> Until you can show the world a working IPv8 implementation on a large
>> using
>> off-the-shelf components where people can run through failure scenarios
>> and
>> really beat it up, not many people are going to take it seriously.
>>
>> Lower layers of the network relying on the functionality of higher layers
>> is a really, really, really bad idea.
>>
>> While it's always important to think about how to so something better, v8
>> seems to create a whole bunch of new problems while not solving many that
>> have already been addressed in v6 and other protocols.
>>
>> Thank you
>> jms
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 1, 2026, 23:22 Jamie Thain via NANOG <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Andrew,
>> >
>> > Cell phones. And Cloud. Not Corps. I started some of this, I mentioned
>> IPv6
>> > in a meeting and two corp engineers laughed.
>> >
>> > You can google it yourself.
>> >
>> > Jamie
>> >
>> > On Sat, May 2, 2026 at 12:19 AM Andrew Kirch via NANOG <
>> > [email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > If no corporation is migrating then why is IPv6 traffic continuing to
>> > > increase?
>> > >
>> > > As I pointed out, IPv6 traffic increased 5% last year.  At that
>> > admittedly
>> > > slow rate, the entire internet will be IPv6 in 10 years.
>> > >
>> > > Further your assertion that business is the prime mover is incorrect.
>> > > Business will move when they have to.  That time is coming.
>> > >
>> > > When businesses can’t get IPv4 from their providers or superscaler,
>> or a
>> > > vendor or client can’t reach them, they will move.
>> > >
>> > > Andrew
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, May 1, 2026 at 11:14 PM Jamie Thain via NANOG <
>> > > [email protected]>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Andrew,
>> > > >
>> > > > 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.
>> > > >
>> > > > Jamie
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2026 at 5:26 PM Andrew Kirch via NANOG <
>> > > > [email protected]> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > I oppose this.  With IPv6 traffic now representing around half of
>> > > > internet
>> > > > > traffic, the time to rethink has long passed.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > If IPv8 was going to be a solution, it should have been a
>> solution 10
>> > > > years
>> > > > > ago.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > In the last 12 months, ~5% of traffic migrated to IPv6.  At that
>> > rate,
>> > > > IPv6
>> > > > > will be fully implemented by 2035.  I'm not seeing a problem that
>> > needs
>> > > > to
>> > > > > be solved, or a credible solution.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Andrew
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2026 at 3:23 PM Jamie Thain via NANOG <
>> > > > > [email protected]>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > 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/3ae384c1b8e2eb92749595407c5cf9b87ea
>> > > > > 3372a?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/D3YXYDYJWWH3A7WZZBYSJQAZOMLECQK7/
>> > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > NANOG mailing list
>> > > >
>> > > > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/
>> > > message/QPBOJRGHJ72YGIQ5BIPMIM4WIXCLZOLA/
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > NANOG mailing list
>> > > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/
>> > > message/VPK4LEVG7XSXPYL54J3OZKBOJN27HWWD/
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > NANOG mailing list
>> >
>> >
>> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/52EWJ6VAN5YXXENIATYZAPIYO5KJAANT/
>> _______________________________________________
>> NANOG mailing list
>>
>> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/2MY7QMH6L67IEHGXMNM5SWFWP4LWCW6C/
>
>
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/SCPNQQRQ6Q7UATMVBT4FIXU5WNI2235A/