@Bluewall @loos
Okay, now I felt the need to actually read more through this IPv8 spec and even just the problem statement has some crazy stuff in it.

After 25 years of deployment effort IPv6 carries a minority of global internet traffic

is already a crazy statement, which I will not accept without at least a few sources.
Yes, IPv6 adoption is bad, but not that bad.

The operational cost of the dual-stack transition model, combined with the absence of management improvement, proved commercially unacceptable.

That's why every time I say that dual stack is insane to consider for anything that's getting built new. IPv6-only and provide legacy connectivity at the edge. It's so much simpler and you get the management improvements of v6.

Every manageable element in an IPv8 network is authorised via OAuth2 JWT tokens

Someone drank too much enterprise cool aid there. That's a pipe dream, not a spec.

Firmware and software updates for L1-L4 stack components are managed via the Update8 protocol

That's not even a pipe dream anymore, this is building an everything spec. They might as well call the protocol X at that point...

BGP8 route advertisements are validated against WHOIS8 before installation in the routing table

Let's take all networking terms and put 8 on it, surely we'll be taken seriously then.

IPv8 does not require dual-stack operation.

IPv6 ALSO DOESN'T

(Can you tell I'm getting mad at this)

There is no flag day. 8to4 tunnelling enables IPv8 islands separated by IPv4- only transit networks to communicate immediately.

Oh so that's your solution. Tunnels. You know what doesn't require tunnels for the most part? IPv6. Why? Because after about 30 years, big networks generally support it!

IPv8 addresses this by defining a coherent management suite in which every service shares a common identity model (OAuth2 JWT)

They could have done something useful and think of how to integrate something like that into existing standards, instead of doing an xkcd 927.

All L3 devices MUST implement eBGP8.

Good luck with that, buddy

IPv8-aware CGNAT MUST NOT modify the r.r.r.r field during translation.

The fact that this is even part of the spec is a wildcard for every service provider under the sun to keep CGNAT around forever.

End devices MUST implement: Route8 unified routing table, static routes, VRF (management plane), two default gateways (even/odd), DHCP8 client, ARP8, ICMPv8, TCP/443 persistent connection to Zone Server, NetLog8 client, ACL8 client-side enforcement, management VRF (VLAN 4090), OOB VRF (VLAN 4091), gratuitous ARP8 on boot.

Good luck fitting that that onto an ESP.

And somehow I'm already at the end of the document.

This feels like someone was bored, took something and went onto a long chat session with some LLM which boils down to "IP, but make it do everything and make it so that some corporate manager will be happy about it".

my dogs if i may drop public informational tone for a moment i think it is fucking awful for a society of living creatures to be sold a future wherein everything is fucking broken and inexplicable and at the mercy of a black box run for the profit of four corporations. I think it is fucking awful to have an industry that claims to sell the notion of of "intelligence" as utility, like water, as a cover for a trojan horse high that makes the wielder feel like a god by corroding everything they touch, like acid.

we used to have "intelligence" run like a wild stream through these parts, a byproduct of people "living their brilliant little lives," but these days it's all on the meter and belches brown from the faucet as a firehose of microplastics and lead leached straight to the dome