Given that IPv6 exists I can not imagine the people that integrated it now suddenly adding yet another routing solution. I would expect a majority of them to say something to the effect of, "Finish deploying IPv6 first as it already exists then we can talk about what gaps remain."
But remember that each /8 freed with great time and expense (because organizations with a /8 can also afford a fleet of lawyers the size of Rhode Island) adds approximately 0.4% to the IPv4 pool. There aren't that many of those ripe for the plucking, either.
I see no need for this IPv8. IPv6 was carefully engineered over many years and while not perfect, works and is deployed. What problem are you trying to solve? I seem to have missed that."
The best starting point is April 29th in the April archive, where Thain begins the discussion:
https://seclists.org/nanog/2026/Apr/date.html
The whole thread is people in the establishment mocking the idea, which is common to innovations good and bad, adopted and not.
[0] https://seclists.org/nanog/2026/May/6
[1] Per the FAQ: "Who is behind it?" "J. Thain (One Limited), author of draft-thain-ipv8-02 and the companion specifications covering routing protocols, RINE, ZoneServer, WHOIS8, NetLog8, and Update8."
> Kernel build of the IPv8 stack
> - Linux kernel branch implementing the IPv8 packet header (RFC §6)
> - AF_INET8 / sockaddr_in8 socket API surface
> - ARP8 dual-probe neighbour capability discovery
> - 8to4 tunnelling for IPv8-over-IPv4 transit
So aside from having to reinvent everything, including kernel-level packet header processing, it's A-OK! It also adds:
> Security by protocol
> - East–west isolation via ACL8. North–south egress validated against DNS8 + WHOIS8.
...for those who were tired of being able to ping other hosts on your LAN without, let's see, checking with a layer 7 protocol first.
In an interview, the creator said[0]:
> Another IPv8 feature is what Thain calls a “Zone server” that his draft explains “runs every service a network segment requires: address assignment (DHCP8), name resolution (DNS8), time synchronisation (NTP8), telemetry collection (NetLog8), authentication caching (OAuth8), route validation (WHOIS8 resolver), access control enforcement (ACL8), and IPv4/IPv8 translation (XLATE8).”
Boy, you thought people had opinions on systemd? Wait until they get a peek at this all-your-eggs-in-one-basket critical infrastructure.
I mean this seriously: there's no part of this that I want anything to do with. Zero. Nothing. I'm only being so harsh here because I don't want to leave any wiggle room of doubt that perhaps I think any of it is redeemable, because it ain't.
[0]https://www.theregister.com/networks/2026/05/12/veteran-netw...
ASNs give you an identity at the peering level that can be used to dynamically provision routes; so it is used to evolve (over time) where a given network-level address lives. Making it part of the address now makes that mapping vastly less flexible.
The list of things it breaks is breathtaking:
- Transferring a subnet between providers can't be done (the ASN part changes).
- Providing the same services on multiple providers doesn't work (different ASNs can't advertise the same address).
- Various types of multicast domain management break (global networks that use IBGP for internet multicast routing need to figure out their prefixes).
Then there's the bootstrapping problem with the mix of layer 3 / layer 7. And JWT used everywhere? And no integrated solutions for things like DNSSEC (warts and all)? No apparent attention to distributed implementations of (now consolidated) core infrastructure?
Say what you want about systemd, at least there is arguably someone applying a different (but consistent) design to a real problem. This "proposal" feels like someone with limited understanding of the design principles behind the Internet opened up ChatGPT and asked it to fix "problems" that they barely understand.
I try not to be mean to the well-meaning, but... well... some people aspire to operate at a level for which they are entirely unqualified.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47788857 - Internet Protocol Version 8 (IPv8) (2026-04-16, 111 comments)
By the way:
> After 25 years of dual-stack effort, IPv6 still carries a minority of global traffic.
It reached 50% last month, I wouldn't call that a minority.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47777894 - IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark (2026-04-15, 621 comments)
The github repo is completely empty. No draft / documentation? Looking forward to see a bit more of the technicalities
https://seclists.org/nanog/2026/Apr/96
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?
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