Re: IPv8 / BGP8 / CF - just build it

Code is extremely malleable. You are not building a lunar lander. It will not explode, kill three people and humiliate a nation if you get it wrong. You will just observe that it is wrong and change it until it is right.

This gives you plentiful opportunities to discover things for yourself instead of spamming this mailing list with stupid arguments.

For example, if you actually write an IPv8 implementation, you can try connecting it to an IPv4 implementation. You will discover whether it actually works or not. This is infinitely more valuable than an argument.


On 2 May 2026 20:05:47 CEST, Jamie Thain via NANOG <[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]
>> [[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] [[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] [[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] [[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] [[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://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-thain-ipv8-02.html]
>> > > > > > <
>> > > > > > https://l.shortlink.es/l/3ae384c1b8e2eb92749595407c5cf9b87ea
>> [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]/
>> [https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/]
>> > > > > message/KPDE4FNBRLQYZOVF5FUAAGJCBSKNS42Q/
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > > NANOG mailing list
>> > > > > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/
>> [https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/]
>> > > > > message/D3YXYDYJWWH3A7WZZBYSJQAZOMLECQK7/
>> > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > NANOG mailing list
>> > > >
>> > > > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/
>> [https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/]
>> > > message/QPBOJRGHJ72YGIQ5BIPMIM4WIXCLZOLA/
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > NANOG mailing list
>> > > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/
>> [https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/]
>> > > message/VPK4LEVG7XSXPYL54J3OZKBOJN27HWWD/
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > NANOG mailing list
>> >
>> > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/
>> message/52EWJ6VAN5YXXENIATYZAPIYO5KJAANT/
>> [https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/52EWJ6VAN5YXXENIATYZAPIYO5KJAANT/]
>> _______________________________________________
>> NANOG mailing list
>> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/
>> message/2MY7QMH6L67IEHGXMNM5SWFWP4LWCW6C/
>> [https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/2MY7QMH6L67IEHGXMNM5SWFWP4LWCW6C/]
>
>[]
>_______________________________________________
>NANOG mailing list 
>https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/JTNFIASLS5MTKKP64R7FV6NDPTH2T6PW/
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/QWWTJWVN775LBWRMBUBP5YWRTFPCEFCT/