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 <nanog@lists.nanog.org> 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/3ae384c1b8e2eb92749595407c5cf9b87ea3372a?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/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/KPDE4FNB...