Re: IPv8 / BGP8 / CF - just build it

Kevin

Code is expensive. I want a sense of anything is wrong first.

Dns server needs 10 lines of code. Dhcp server 0, ntp server 100, netlog
1000,

So far mostly people have told me to go F myself.

But it's the economics will win.

Tco = 0

If ipv is compatible
     If protocol = ipv8
          Tco = education + dev time of tools once on all 4 varaint os's +
any premiium - (integration savings)
      - 100,000s per mid size enterprise per year.

        Think -100 000 per 1000 employees or so

     If protocol = ipv6
           Tco = interoperability testing + education + i get my ass fired
for using it.

Tco for ipv8 - billions

Tco for ipv6 + billions



On Sat., May 2, 2026, 5:56 p.m. Kevin Tillery via NANOG, <
[email protected]> wrote:

> 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/
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/DTITZNUEU3HKMUMXI3NWZVELKL6J4KIB/