I would like to propose IPw16. IPw16 consists of two IPv8's attached at a single crankshaft, with 4 turbochargers. Basically it is Internet routing, but with a Bugatti instead of a Cisco. It is much more expensive, but when filled with modern high-density HAMR platter storage, IPw16 is significantly cheaper per packet and faster than the current Internet over significant distances.* I will submit RFCs to the IETF covering this standard, and its ability to interoperate with RFC2549 utilizing higher capacity avian carriers such as condors for oceanic routing, either never, or depending on my mood next April 1st. It may be a stupid standard but it's better than IPv8. Andrew *cost effectiveness numbers are from before the Iran war, your mileage may vary. Void where prohibited by speed limit. Again I ask, with decreasing cordiality as this stupidity seems to be unending. Would it be in any way possible for this thread to die now? On Sun, May 3, 2026 at 2:15 PM Joe Provo via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
On Sat, May 02, 2026 at 09:14:32PM -0300, Jamie Thain via NANOG wrote:
Kevin
Code is expensive.
Code is cheap; maintenance is expensive. Assertions regarding TCO based on no experience nor testing is farcical.
I want a sense of anything is wrong first.
Frankly, I don't believe you. You've been repeatedly told the many ways this is broken and are arguing instead of listening.
I also think you've actively ignored the success of IPv6-mostly enterprise deployments relying on DHCP option 108. That's a good example of vendor adoption of protocol changes.
Cheers,
Joe
-- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/Q624G6CX...