Re: IPv8 / BGP8 / CF

Sounds like you basically reinvented NAT64 but with extra steps and 30 
years behind.


On 04/05/2026 00:04, Jamie Thain via NANOG wrote:
> >From host a to host b in the ipv8 world host b ipv8 address is
> 0-192.168.2.3 and in a network 65535 is on a different segment.
>
> Local segments cannot share the same ip address.
>
> Host b looks like the DNS address of host a
> Xlate8 makes a translate rule to the destination is the zone server, the
> source is the card and makes a new rule where the destination is the IPv8
> interface of the zone server and the destination is the IPv8 192.168.2.3
>
>
> 192.168.2.3 send the IP address of the zone server which gets translated to
> the IP address of the IPv8 and it has the source address of the zone server
> and IPv8 so it sends packets back to that and then back to 192168.2.3
>
> Now barring that every IPv8 network gives a DHCP name to every interface,
> and learns a c name by the LLDP name and if the device also wants to
> propagate some kind of name like the web server then you can put it in the
> LLDP name and it will capture it or you can configure a c name to that IP
> address.
>
> Jamie
>
>
>
>
> On Sun., May 3, 2026, 5:05 a.m. Owen DeLong, <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Host A is at address 65534:192.168.2.3
>> Host B is at address 192.168.2.3
>>
>> How, exactly, do you think these two hosts magically exchange packets?
>>
>> Host B has no IPv8 stack and no ability to produce an IPv8 packet with the
>> extra 32 octets.
>> Host A must be 100% backwards compatible to live up to your claims.
>>
>> Yes, I realize my example involves a private ASN and a public address.
>> Substitute overlapping public addresses if you prefer, the point remains.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>>
>>> On May 2, 2026, at 05:56, Jamie Thain via NANOG <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> Mikael
>>>
>>> And what isn't backwards compatible if you know of something. I'm all
>> ears.
>>> Jamie
>>>
>>> On Sat., May 2, 2026, 6:18 a.m. Mikael Abrahamsson, <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 2 May 2026, Jamie Thain wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ipv10 Was A dual stack idea.
>>>> Everything that isn't IPv4 will be a new stack. This was realised
>> already
>>>> in the 90s, and that's why we have IPv6 that's now close to 30 years
>> into
>>>> its deployment. Adding another stack in the mix won't help.
>>>>
>>>> If you would have done what you're doing back in mid 90s, it might have
>>>> helped. You're 3 decades too late.
>>>>
>>>>> Again since you can't do the analysis steps then just send me a tape
>>>>> recording.
>>>> There is nothing to analyze. You're proposing something that isn't
>>>> backwards compatible, and you don't seem to understand this is what
>> you're
>>>> proposing. Same as IPv10 guy.
>>>>
>>>> So start implementing, you might understand it then.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [email protected]
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NANOG mailing list
>>>
>> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/Z4YOGRDCPBOG5SGSQPC4A3FDICSYLJYB/
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> NANOG mailing list
> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/UMJJIVVSQE52URYB6PCHY7X3D5A56WU5/
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/EF7E2NZQBECFZ5PTWFZTP6OMURB7VP52/