[Int-area] Re: I STRONGLY OPPOSE ipv8 proposal.

[Andrew Alston <[e-mail]>]

As much as I dislike this proposal and don’t believe it will go anywhere,
 can we please not descend into swearing and other nonsense.

Let’s keep things vaguely polite please

Andrew

On Thu, 23 Apr 2026 at 09:28, sotrdg sotrdg <[e-mail]> wrote:

> then whatever this should NOT be called ipv8.
>
> Still it is a bad idea to further enshitfy the protocol
>
> Get Outlook for Android <https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Jamie Thain <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 22, 2026 8:07:17 PM
> *To:* Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>; sotrdg sotrdg <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Int-area] Re: I STRONGLY OPPOSE ipv8 proposal.
>
> Gyan
>
> That's not what i said or specifically said. I believe that both IPv4 and
> IPv6 are structured wrong for proper management and the goal is to make it
> better faster cheaper.
>
> The better statement and the one i think i made is no statement because i
> don't know.
>
> You see i think the problem is like this.
>
> Architect: Good morning Mr. CTO I was just at a conference and we should
> do IPv6 it will only be a million dollars.
>
> Mr. CTO what do I get for my million. What do i tell the board?
>
> Architect: Well we'll help the world not run out of IP numbers.
>
> Mr. CTO: Ok when it actually impacts ME come back. I'm not taking any risk
> without improved value for us.
>
> So working on the industry for 50 years, I'm Arcnet old, I see the future
> of people running two protocols forever.
>
> Two protocols that both need fixing.
>
> And to me in reality on the public side of they put 4 to 6 gw everywhere,
> and everything public who cares.
>
> Maybe if someone builds an ipv6 zone server equivalent and there's some
> ipeteus and you upgrade the protocol so it manages itself and you add two
> defgw by default well then the world would be a better place.
>
> They both need fixing.
>
> Jamie
>
> On Wed., Apr. 22, 2026, 2:45 a.m. Gyan Mishra, <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Jamie
>
> Can you update your draft and make it clear that the intent is to help
> issues related to IPv4 but not interfere with IPv6 deployments or
> progression.  As you mentioned your goal is the help IPv4 but not impact in
> any way IPv6 progression.
>
> IPv6 has come a long way in 25 years and we are close to 30% deployment
> worldwide.
>
> The reason why it had taken a long time has nothing to do with dual stack
> which had been historically the industry standard for deployment.
>
> One major point to be made is operators worldwide within 3 tier internet
> model  have mostly all fully dual stacked to edge gateways connecting their
> customer networks and both.  So the IPv6 prefix is being advertised by
> telco operators access network WLN and WLS both IPv4 and IPv6 and here
> their are gaps and not yet 100%.  The server side Hyperscalers, Cloud
> service providers and smaller web providers if the web servers are dual
> stacked but the telco  operator is not dual stacked the only A query even
> if web server is dual stacked.  If the telco operator is dual stacked but
> the EE server side compute is not dual stacked then the client will send
> A/AAAA request but the rely is only A reply since server side is not dual
> stacked. This is slow to close the gap but their has been a lot of momentum
> in closing the gaps.
>
> In section 3 of your draft you mentioned route table growth.  Standard
> operator rule is to allow LPM prefers /24 for IPv4 and /48 for IPv6.  This
> is required LPM routing if longer matches of an aggregation have different
> ownership.
>
> You mentioned BGP4 and route leaks.
>
> There has been tremendous work done by IDR GROW and SIDROPS to address
> route leaks and Route origin validation.  Today most operators world wide
> have deployed BGP ROA / ROV / VRP which requires each node to have a RPKI
> session to BGP RPKI Server which has the ROA database.  With ROV route
> origin validation enabled on each Internet node when the BGP update is
> received with ROV enabled per address family the prefix must match  the
> origin AS or it will be dropped and if correct is marked valid.  The next
> step is ASPA which is AS path validation.  The final phase is full BGP SEC.
>
> RFC 9234 Route leak prevention is being deployed globally to which only
> allows peer to come up if it’s a valid peering relationship which ad RS/RC,
> RC/RS, Provider/Customer, Customer/Provider, Peer/Peer. A new path
> attribute OTC only two customer prevent leaks if OTC is advertised to
> others than customer peer the prefix is dropped.
>
> RFC 8092 BGP Large Communities x:y:z 12 bytes with global value 4 byte ASN
>  x and local value 4 byte WLK well known community value is also used for
> route leak prevention similar to RTC.
>
> CGN has helped prolong IPv4 but now we are at the tipping point close to
> it that we should be able to start removing CGN from telco providers fully
> on IPv6.
>
> For this reason for IPv8 and ASN I think you can remove the BGP AS
> dependency on IP8.
>
> Comment on this paragraph.
>
> IPv4 network management has no coherent integrated model. The protocols
> that operate a network -- DHCP, DNS, NTP, syslog, SNMP, authentication --
> were specified independently over four decades, share no common identity
> model, no common authentication mechanism, and no common telemetry format.
>
> Most operators use anycast for those services and that works pretty well.
> DHCPv4 doles out DNS.  NTP, Syslog, SNMP are all anycast and deployed once
> and then never touched.
>
> Most all operators deploy router configurations as CI/CD pipeline and use
> IAC infrastructure as code with Ansible playbook or nornir / netbox or Go
> for orchestration.  So no issues here.i
>
> UTC is the standard timestamp for routers and compute to so time is synced
> worldwide.  That eliminates any log correlation issues.
>
> Thanks
>
> Gyan
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 4:39 PM Jamie Thain <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Mr S. Moonesamy,
>
> No nettelemetry is a replacement for SNMP, and LOG in one place. Every
> device knows where to send logs, and sends them in JSON format instead of
> polling. Its not meant to be Chrome NetLog.
>
> The tools you were looking at are advanced diagnostic tools. NetLog8 is
> primarily a error logging tool and is quiet on error free networks.
>
> JWT Tokens never pass beyond the Zone Server, unless you configure them
> to, for example, an enterprise, might have a VPN tunnel from home router to
> work, configured by logging a tunnel into O365.
>
> HTH,
>
> Jamie
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 4:30 PM S Moonesamy <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> I and sending my reply to int-area mailing list.
>
> At 09:20 AM 17-04-2026, Jamie Thain wrote:
> >Thank you for your words. The goal is not to deprecate ipv6. I
> >believe most of the mobile carriers will continue to use their ipv6
> >infrastructure.
> >
> >IPv8 is meant to fix the management issues in ipv4.
> >
> >It's to fix the global address structure.
> >
> >Ipv6 can be as easily intercepted and blocked as can ipv4. So it's
> >not the protocol allowing you access. It is the lack of implementation.
> >
> >When ipv6 grows to a meaningful level, China will add it to the great
> Wall.
> >
> >So with that said, ipv8 is not a social political issue, it's a
> >technical issue.
>
> I was reading draft-thain-ipv8-02 quickly.  The draft mentions "a
> common telemetry format (NetLog8)" in Section 3.1.  I did a quick
> search and I found the following:
>
> https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/troubleshoot/entra/entra-id/app-integration/use-netlog-capture-network-traffic
>
> https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:net/docs/net-log.md
>
> Will the "common telemetry" be doing something similar to what is on
> the web pages mentioned above?  If that is the case, would such
> behavior "subvert the intent of communicating parties without the
> agreement of those parties" (RFC 7258)?
>
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
>
> >On Fri., Apr. 17, 2026, 1:01 p.m. sotrdg sotrdg,
> ><<mailto:[e-mail]>[e-mail]> wrote:
> >1. IPv8 makes Governments across the globe much easier to block IP
> >and censor internet. I am from China and i use ipv6 to bypass the
> >great firewall. ipv8 makes this much easier to block since it reuses
> >existing ipv4 (which is blocked for sure) and its address space is
> >very small. this ipv8 proposal is just another attempt of big tech
> >and governments around the world tries to kill open internet.
> >
> >2. Implementing ipv8 means deprecating ipv6 which is a huge
> >problem.  it is not really solving anything
> >
> >3. it is not easy to implement ipv8 at all. Android OEMs locks down
> >bootloaders and not mentioning routers too. That means billions of
> >devices immediately e-waste since they will not get updated to
> >support ipv8. It is just another N+1 problem.
> >
> >4. ipv8's address space is WAY too small. 2^64 may be enough for
> >representing a machine but it does not count things like virtual
> >machines which might use tons of ip addresses for a very good reason.
> >
> >5. To say ipv6 is not adopted is very untrue since i am using ipv6
> >every day to bypass internet censorship. All my traffic, even this
> >email comes from ipv6. this is just completely bs proposal
>
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>