Re: IPv8 / BGP8 / CF

Andrew,

I am certainly happy to see IPv6 traffic continue to rise (in
absolute terms, and as a percentage of total Internet Traffic).  However, I
believe the long tail won't disappear within 10 years.  As we get to that
tail, it's going to be long.

That includes the traffic we see on the Internet, and the large traffic
flows occurring inside hidden and underlying networks which aren't visible
when looking at Internet traffic levels.

As for IPv8, ignoring the merits of the technical proposal or the ability
to make it work in a real-world scenario - having to contend with IPv6
enablement while also implementing and deploying yet a new protocol /
environment  will likely add contention to an already full stack of work
most enerprises have.

regards,

Victor K

On Fri, May 1, 2026 at 11:19 PM 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/FZ7MD2EZQDD3KDVUZIY62Z7EJJIABB7D/