I find it funny that all these network protocols failed to replace TCP/IP6... *Network Protocols and Architectures Attempting to Replace or Supersede IPv6 (2000–Present)* *Overview* Since the early 2000s, multiple protocols and architectural frameworks have been proposed to either replace, augment, or fundamentally redesign the Internet Protocol (IP) stack—particularly IPv6. While very few have gained widespread adoption, these efforts fall into several categories: - Clean-slate Internet redesigns - Identity/locator separation models - Content-centric networking - Policy-driven or state-controlled architectures - Experimental or non-standard IP versions This document provides a structured list of such efforts, including their goals, design principles, and current status. ------------------------------ *Protocol and Architecture Summary* *1. IPv9 (China Decimal Network)* - *Year Introduced:* ~2004 - *Replacement Intent:* Claimed full replacement of IPv6 - *Core Concept:* Decimal-based addressing system; alternative DNS root model - *Objective:* Sovereign control over addressing and naming infrastructure - *Status:* Limited adoption; not recognized by global standards bodies ------------------------------ *2. ILNP (Identifier-Locator Network Protocol)* - *Year Introduced:* 2006–2012 - *Replacement Intent:* Evolutionary (not full replacement) - *Core Concept:* Separates endpoint identity from network location - *Objective:* Improve mobility, multihoming, and routing scalability - *Status:* Experimental (IRTF); compatible with IPv6 concepts ------------------------------ *3. LISP (Locator/ID Separation Protocol)* - *Year Introduced:* ~2006 - *Replacement Intent:* No (overlay architecture) - *Core Concept:* Decouples endpoint identifiers (EIDs) from routing locators (RLOCs) - *Objective:* Reduce global routing table size, improve mobility - *Status:* Standardized (RFC 9300); niche deployments ------------------------------ *4. RINA (Recursive InterNetwork Architecture)* - *Year Introduced:* ~2008 - *Replacement Intent:* Yes (clean-slate redesign) - *Core Concept:* Recursive layers of Inter-Process Communication (IPC) - *Objective:* Replace rigid TCP/IP layering with flexible, recursive design - *Status:* Research and experimental ------------------------------ *5. SCION (Scalability, Control, and Isolation On Next-generation Networks)* - *Year Introduced:* ~2009 - *Replacement Intent:* Partial / parallel Internet - *Core Concept:* Path-aware networking with cryptographic trust domains - *Objective:* Secure routing, isolation domains, resilience to attacks - *Status:* Most operationally mature alternative; limited real-world deployment ------------------------------ *6. NDN / CCN (Named Data Networking / Content-Centric Networking)* - *Year Introduced:* ~2010 - *Replacement Intent:* Yes (fundamental shift from IP) - *Core Concept:* Data is addressed by name rather than location - *Objective:* Optimize content distribution, caching, and security - *Status:* Active research; limited deployments ------------------------------ *7. MobilityFirst* - *Year Introduced:* ~2010 - *Replacement Intent:* Yes (research architecture) - *Core Concept:* Identity-based addressing with late binding to location - *Objective:* Handle mobility and disconnection as primary conditions - *Status:* NSF-funded research project ------------------------------ *8. XIA (eXpressive Internet Architecture)* - *Year Introduced:* ~2010 - *Replacement Intent:* Yes (research architecture) - *Core Concept:* Supports multiple principal types (hosts, services, content, etc.) - *Objective:* Flexible, evolvable Internet addressing model - *Status:* Research and prototype stage ------------------------------ *9. NEBULA* - *Year Introduced:* ~2010 - *Replacement Intent:* Yes (research architecture) - *Core Concept:* Secure, cloud-oriented networking with policy enforcement - *Objective:* Trustworthy cloud networking infrastructure - *Status:* Research project ------------------------------ *10. IPv10* - *Year Introduced:* ~2017–2020 - *Replacement Intent:* Claimed transition/replacement - *Core Concept:* Hybrid IPv4/IPv6 packet structure - *Objective:* Smooth transition between IPv4 and IPv6 - *Status:* Internet-Draft only; no adoption ------------------------------ *11. New IP (Huawei / ITU Network 2030)* - *Year Introduced:* ~2019–2022 - *Replacement Intent:* Yes / parallel architecture - *Core Concept:* Variable-length addressing, deterministic networking, centralized control - *Objective:* Enable strict QoS, industrial control, and policy enforcement - *Concerns:* Centralization, fragmentation of global Internet - *Status:* Controversial; not adopted by IETF ------------------------------ *12. IPv8 (draft-thain-ipv8)* - *Year Introduced:* 2026 - *Replacement Intent:* Claimed full replacement - *Core Concept:* Fully managed network stack integrating: - DNS8 (naming) - DHCP8 (configuration) - WHOIS8 (route validation) - OAuth/JWT-based authorization - *Objective:* Unified control plane for identity, routing, and policy - *Status:* Early Internet-Draft; not standardized ------------------------------ *Key Observations* *1. True IPv6 Replacements Are Rare* Most proposals do not directly replace IPv6 but instead: - Overlay on top of IP (e.g., LISP) - Extend IPv6 concepts (e.g., ILNP) - Operate as parallel architectures (e.g., SCION) ------------------------------ *2. Clean-Slate Architectures Remain Experimental* Projects like: - RINA - NDN - MobilityFirst - XIA - NEBULA have strong theoretical foundations but lack global deployment due to: - Compatibility challenges - Economic inertia - Operational complexity ------------------------------ *3. Security and Control Are Major Drivers* Modern proposals focus heavily on: - Cryptographic identity (SCION, NDN) - Policy enforcement (New IP, IPv8) - Routing trust and validation ------------------------------ *4. SCION Is the Most Operationally Viable Alternative* Among all candidates: - Demonstrates real-world deployment - Provides strong security and path control - Still coexists with IP rather than replacing it ------------------------------ *5. Controversial Centralized Models* Architectures like *New IP* and *IPv8* introduce: - Tight integration of identity and policy - Centralized control mechanisms These raise concerns around: - Internet fragmentation - Surveillance and governance risks ------------------------------ *Conclusion* Despite numerous attempts over the past 25+ years, *IPv6 remains the dominant and only globally standardized next-generation Internet Protocol*. The most viable future direction is not outright replacement, but: - Incremental evolution (e.g., SRv6, QUIC, encrypted DNS) - Overlay and hybrid architectures (e.g., SCION, LISP) - Integration with security and identity frameworks The industry trend suggests *augmentation—not replacement—of IPv6* will define the next phase of Internet evolution. Joe Klein "inveniet viam, aut faciet" --- Seneca's Hercules Furens (Act II, Scene 1) "*I skate to where the puck is going to be, not to where it has been." -- *Wayne Gretzky "I never lose. I either win or learn" - Nelson Mandela On Sat, May 2, 2026 at 4:37 PM Joe Klein <jsklein@gmail.com> wrote:
I find it funny that all these network protocols failed to replace TCP/IP4... Before TCP/IP became the universal standard, the "Protocol Wars" of the 1980s and 90s featured several heavyweights that were once "all the rage." These protocols often prioritised performance on local networks or were backed by massive government and corporate interests that explicitly aimed to avoid the "ad-hoc" nature of the U.S. Department of Defense's TCP/IP suite. [1 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_Wars>, 2 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_Wars>, 3 <https://www.britannica.com/technology/TCP-IP>] The Most Prominent Alternatives
- IPX/SPX (Novell NetWare): The king of the 1980s LAN. It was "awesomesauce" for local offices because it was plug-and-play, using a computer's MAC address as its network identity. It was faster and lighter than early TCP/IP but struggled to scale for the global internet. - OSI (Open Systems Interconnection): A massive, 7-layer theoretical framework developed by international committees. European governments and the U.S. Department of Commerce even mandated its use for a time, viewing TCP/IP as a temporary military experiment. It ultimately failed because it was too complex and arrived too late with working code. - AppleTalk: Designed for early Macintosh networks, it was remarkably user-friendly and allowed printers and computers to "find" each other automatically. However, it was "chatty," sending constant background updates that could overwhelm larger networks. - SNA (Systems Network Architecture): IBM's proprietary powerhouse for connecting mainframes. It was reliable and sophisticated for corporate environments but kept users locked into the IBM ecosystem. - DECnet: Digital Equipment Corporation's suite for its VAX systems. Like SNA, it was highly capable but ultimately proprietary. [1 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_Wars>, 2 <https://www.quora.com/How-do-TCP-IP-and-IPX-SPX-differ>, 3 <https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/45c108/eli5_what_is_ipx_protocol_and_why_have_we_moved/>, 4 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internetwork_Packet_Exchange>, 5 <https://www.americantv.com/ipx-spx.php>, 6 <https://www.fortinet.com/resources/cyberglossary/tcp-ip-model-vs-osi-model>, 7 <https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/computer-networks/difference-between-osi-model-and-tcp-ip-model/>, 8 <https://www.quora.com/What-were-the-alternatives-to-TCP-IP-when-the-Internet-was-formed>, 9 <https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/29823/what-were-the-major-things-that-caused-tcp-ip-to-become-the-internet-standard-pr>, 10 <https://www.myweb.ttu.edu/csmith/Protocols.html>, 11 <https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-networks-today-that-dont-use-TCP-IP>, 12 <https://www.reddit.com/r/networking/comments/16f2zwi/how_would_the_internet_infrastructure_today_look/>, 13 <https://www.quora.com/Why-is-TCP-IP-still-the-core-protocol-of-the-Internet-and-are-there-any-potential-replacements-or-improvements-in-the-works> ]
------------------------------ 🛡️ Why They "Lost" to TCP/IP
- The "Design by Committee" Trap: The OSI suite became bloated because every participating country wanted their specific features included, making it nearly impossible to implement efficiently. - Pragmatism vs. Theory: TCP/IP was built by researchers who wrote the code first and the standards later. It was "good enough" and already running on Unix systems everywhere by the time competitors were still arguing over specs. - The Rise of the Web: When the World Wide Web launched in the early 90s, it ran on TCP/IP. To access the "new" internet, everyone was forced to adopt the protocol, rendering the proprietary alternatives obsolete. [1 <https://www.quora.com/It-has-been-said-that-the-OSI-model-won-the-battle-but-lost-the-war-against-TCP-IP-Why-do-you-think-this-is-so>, 2 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxBTdOOV2ts&t=6>, 3 <http://www.sci.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~parsons/courses/3120-fall-2012/notes/tcp-ip-notes.pdf>, 4 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_Wars>, 5 <https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/29823/what-were-the-major-things-that-caused-tcp-ip-to-become-the-internet-standard-pr> ]
Joe Klein
"inveniet viam, aut faciet" --- Seneca's Hercules Furens (Act II, Scene 1) "*I skate to where the puck is going to be, not to where it has been." -- *Wayne Gretzky "I never lose. I either win or learn" - Nelson Mandela
On Sat, May 2, 2026, 1:34 PM Tom Beecher via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
Essentially your arguments boil down to :
"Some companies don't want to spend money to implement V6. My solution is a new IP version 8, which would require EVERY company to spend money to implement. This totally makes sense, don't you see?"
Not only are your technical proposals flawed, your logic is completely backwards.
On Sat, May 2, 2026 at 3:27 AM Jamie Thain via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
Marco
There is no point where shareholders will ask 'where is my ipv6 presence' they don't care.
Dear Mr shareholder give me 2m dollars for an ipv6 presence.
Shareholder what's not working
CTO nothing
Shareholder, you want 2m $ to fix something that's not broken -- and so we get to turn off what we have now and save a bunch of money.... THIS QUARTER
CTO nope
Sharholder : your fired.
🙂 And that's exactly why
Jamie
On Sat., May 2, 2026, 2:39 a.m. Mark Andrews via NANOG, < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
IPv4 only machines can reach IPv6 machines. It just requires a DNS46 implementation which was done as an experiment years ago and a CLAT with address mappings configured from the DNS46. This is known to not scale well but there are very little truely IPv4 equipment these days. It works on the small scale.
Now it would be nice if people would move to IPv6 sooner rather than later but now it’s mostly getting people to turn it on rather than waiting for equipment to support it. It will get to the stage where shareholders will start asking where is our IPv6 presence? Remember that everyone is paying more for these IPv4 only sites. Your home ISP / cellular provider has to charge you more to provide this backwards compatibility. A line item on the bill would make this clearer. Big ISPs aren’t turning off IPv6. They are turning off IPv4 towards the customer leaving IPv4 to be delivered via IPv4AAS.
-- Mark Andrews
On 2 May 2026, at 14:55, Marco Moock via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
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
Am 02.05.26 um 05:13 schrieb Jamie Thain via NANOG: thing in
Corporate networks for 20 years.
If they are not willing to upgrade, they are also not willing to implement any other new protocol, as this always means that IPv4 only machines need to be changed, as you cannot make them able to reach non IPv4 machines without modifying them.
All of that stuff has being discussed many times...
-- Gruß Marco
Junk-Mail bitte an trashcan@stinkedores.dorfdsl.de _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/2EKXGBLS...
_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/KU543YXN...
_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/Y5ALPB5T... _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/TINMZBCV...