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 <nanog@lists.nanog.org> 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, <swmike@swm.pp.se> 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: swmike@swm.pp.se
_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/Z4YOGRDC...