[Int-area] Re: questions about draft-thain-ipv8-02

[Jamie Thain <[e-mail]>]

Tom, 

>>  There are a lot of answers to this question. There are 20 years of
conversations, debates, arguments, conference presentations, etc., on the
subject of IPv6 deployment/penetration.  

And their conclusion -- I can tell you what the CFOs and CTOs I work with --
says. 

Jamie 

[]
On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 4:23 PM Tom Beecher <[e-mail]
[[e-mail]]> wrote:


> > Ipv6 i recall was maybe was 1996. 
> 
> 
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc2460/
> [https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc2460/]
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8200/
> [https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8200/] 
> 
> 
> The original draft of 2460 is from 1997. The adopted standard of 8200 was in
> active work through 2017. 
> 
> 
> 
> > If the IETF doesn't want SKEs to participate they should say so. 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not familiar with SKE as a TLA. If you are implying anyone is telling you
> that you cannot participate , that's not what is happening. But you may want
> to read rfc2026 that describes the pathway from Internet-Draft to Standard. 
> 
> 
> 
> > And while you don't have to -- you might want to ask -- why are the numbers
> > of penetration in corp so low. 
> 
> 
> 
> There are a lot of answers to this question. There are 20 years of
> conversations, debates, arguments, conference presentations, etc., on the
> subject of IPv6 deployment/penetration. 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 2:06 PM Jamie Thain <[e-mail] [[e-mail]]>
> wrote:
> 
> > Tom 
> > 
> > 
> > Smartphones arrived on scene with the iphone. Around 2007. 
> > 
> > 
> > Ipv6 i recall was maybe was 1996. 
> > 
> > 
> > My point is the Internet is not well served by a flat network. 
> > 
> > 
> > The cloud about 201x something. 
> > 
> > 
> > If the IETF doesn't want SKEs to participate they should say so. 
> > 
> > 
> > Only ipv6 efforts allowed here.
> > 
> > 
> > And while you don't have to -- you might want to ask -- why are the numbers
> > of penetration in corp so low. 
> > 
> > 
> > Answer ? 
> > 
> > 
> > Jamie 
> > 
> > On Tue., Apr. 28, 2026, 2:20 p.m. Tom Beecher, <[e-mail]
> > [[e-mail]]> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > > > As it stands now, the work by the LISPers doesn't solve the problems of
> > > > corporate/enterprise networks. The history is fascinating, but when IPv6
> > > > was invented, working methods were entirely different. 
> > > > 
> > > > There were very few cell phones, for the most part, they didn't have IP
> > > > addresses, and the world was one flat enterprise. Now we are stuck
> > > > between the corporate IPv4 world and the SuperScalars IPv6 world. Both
> > > > protocols require a hierarchical access system. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Most of this is factually incorrect. Smartphones with internet
> > > connectivity were quite ubiquitous for many years during IPv6 standards
> > > development. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > There was no cloud. Now we need an easy way to identify, separate and
> > > > manage them. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > The challenges you describe can either be solved using the existing IP
> > > versions , or are those that IP isn't even the correct place to solve
> > > them. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > And since i've built hundreds of networks. I should know the gaps. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > "I know better" is unlikely to be a persuasive argument to move your ideas
> > > forward. Good luck to you. 
> > > 
> > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 11:38 AM Jamie Thain <[e-mail] [[e-mail]]>
> > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Tom, 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > As it stands now, the work by the LISPers doesn't solve the problems of
> > > > corporate/enterprise networks. The history is fascinating, but when IPv6
> > > > was invented, working methods were entirely different. 
> > > > 
> > > > There were very few cell phones, for the most part, they didn't have IP
> > > > addresses, and the world was one flat enterprise. Now we are stuck
> > > > between the corporate IPv4 world and the SuperScalars IPv6 world. Both
> > > > protocols require a hierarchical access system. 
> > > > 
> > > > There was no cloud. Now we need an easy way to identify, separate and
> > > > manage them. And since i've built hundreds of networks. I should know
> > > > the gaps. 
> > > > 
> > > > So thanks for understanding the issue and the solution. 
> > > > 
> > > > Jamie 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > []
> > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 11:32 AM Tom Beecher <[e-mail]
> > > > [[e-mail]]> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Jamie-
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > I created it to solve the many problems that neither IPv6 nor IPv4
> > > > > > solves. And I believe, and was actually quite surprised that my
> > > > > > document gathered any more attention beyond a brief mention, because
> > > > > > it addresses these long-standing problems.  Naive I believed that
> > > > > > the standards body would see that the 50 year old protocol, and the
> > > > > > 30 year old protocol were not built for modern corporate
> > > > > > environments or the cloud, and would embrace the need for an
> > > > > > upgrade. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > I would counter that submitting a 30 page document for a new internet
> > > > > protocol version without understanding the development history and
> > > > > design decisions of previous versions in use is exceptionally naive. 
> > > > >  
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 9:25 AM Jamie Thain <[e-mail]
> > > > > [[e-mail]]> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Daniel, 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Thank-you for your insight. I didn't create IPv8 to displace IPv6. I
> > > > > > created it to solve the many problems that neither IPv6 nor IPv4
> > > > > > solves. And I believe, and was actually quite surprised that my
> > > > > > document gathered any more attention beyond a brief mention, because
> > > > > > it addresses these long-standing problems.  Naive I believed that
> > > > > > the standards body would see that the 50 year old protocol, and the
> > > > > > 30 year old protocol were not built for modern corporate
> > > > > > environments or the cloud, and would embrace the need for an
> > > > > > upgrade. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 1. Hence the Zone Server, a central dual homed, configuration and
> > > > > > network management server. VLAN, Device or ID based. 
> > > > > > 2. The idea of area-codes + internet address so the internet becomes
> > > > > > hierarchical rather than flat, and adds meaning.
> > > > > > 3. An internal routing number of 127.x.x.x -- because RFC 1918 is
> > > > > > not enough. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > IPv8 == ASN + IPv4     IPv8 ≠ 64 bit address. 
> > > > > >  
> > > > > > Two giant companies merge, in IPv8 they both assign themselves two
> > > > > > private ASNs, say 127.100.100.100 and 127.200.200.200 and they know
> > > > > > the source and destination of every one of the now 4B internal IPs
> > > > > > they need. I've been through 10.x.x.x mergers when I worked at a
> > > > > > company that made 5 major acquisitions in 10 months. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 4. That the ASNs only need a few routes to the ASNs rather than
> > > > > > dozens of /24 - /16s advertised per ASN. Just advertise the ASN. In
> > > > > > summary, instead of being 1.2 Million entries and climbing, each
> > > > > > large ASN would generally have 8 routes, and smaller ones 2
> > > > > > compressing the table to about 350k entries. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > So the malarkey actually is a solution to several problems that need
> > > > > > addressing in the corporate world. Identity, Management, Built-in
> > > > > > logging, isolation, cloud network management, VPCs, and VPNs all
> > > > > > needed attention. And a few in the internet world: route sprawl and
> > > > > > RADIUS/Diameter solutions. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > All the best, 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Jamie     
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 9:23 AM Daniel McLarty
> > > > > > <daniel=[e-mail]
> > > > > > [[e-mail]]> wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > My opinion is that all this IPv8 malarkey that has been pining
> > > > > > > everyone on this list all month is just some vibedrafted idea that
> > > > > > > serves no utility. IPv6 exists and is already (finally) getting
> > > > > > > adoption.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I would not be shocked if in a month or two one of the AI
> > > > > > > companies comes out and says 'Our AI made an internet draft! Look
> > > > > > > at how smart we are.' At least that is my opinion on IPv8.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Frankly, can we please just ignore this like we do with the 10,000
> > > > > > > other bad drafts submitted every year? I’m genuinely confused why
> > > > > > > this one managed to capture so much attention when it doesn't even
> > > > > > > survive a basic sanity check of the OSI model.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On 4/27/26 9:23 PM, Shizhang Bi wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > may someone(s) in this group shed light. thanks.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Hi Mr. Thain,
> > > > > > > >       two questions for you around ipv8 (the v2 draft to be
> > > > > > > > precise), excuse me if they are stupid:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >       1. since the ASN occupies the first 32 bits in ipv8
> > > > > > > > address, why "The minimum injectable prefix at inter-AS
> > > > > > > > boundaries is /16"?
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >       2. why DNS record for ipv8 (64 bits) is not named as "AA"
> > > > > > > > given ipv4 (32 bits) is "A" and ipv6 "AAAA" (128 bits)? A8 for
> > > > > > > > me (and many people as well i believe) means "AAAAAAAA" ...
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > thanks for your time.
> > > > > > > > regards,
> > > > > > > > bi
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > Int-area mailing list -- [e-mail][e-mail]
> > > > > > > > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail][e-mail]
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Int-area mailing list -- [e-mail] [[e-mail]]
> > > > > > > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> > > > > > > [[e-mail]]
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Int-area mailing list -- [e-mail] [[e-mail]]
> > > > > > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> > > > > > [[e-mail]]