Internet-Draft Internet Protocol Version 8 (IPv8)
7 points by indigo
7 points by indigo
Umm... it isn't April 1st, but is this perhaps meant to be a joke? I got as far as "every manageable element in an IPv8 network is authorised via OAuth2 JWT tokens served from a local cache" and noped out.
I don’t see one guy in Bermuda single handedly designing a new generation Internet protocol. And none of the supporting drafts seem to exist. Sounds like crackpottery to me…
The "guy in Bermuda" is the CTO of a company that does, among other things, telecommunications consulting. I'm assuming it's the same guy because same name, correct industry, and Bermuda's not exactly huge.
Instead of run-of-the-mill crackpottery, this might be a sort of vanity project. Anybody can submit one of these drafts, but "IETF" still sounds pretty good to the casual listener. Especially if (and disclaimer, I have no evidence for this) you're talking to clients: "Sure, the competitors might do IPv4 and IPv6 for you, but IETF just came out with IPv8. And our CTO is the world's foremost expert in IPv8…"
Every manageable element in an IPv8 network is authorised via OAuth2 JWT tokens served from a local cache.
No.
So you want JSON parsers, alg: "none", RS256 → HS256 attacks, and a bunch of other craziness everywhere?
Ignoring the spec for JWT that allows those attacks, sealed JSON tokens are cool. Basically such a proposal needs restrictions on those tokens to forbid the obvious holes.
I literally just sent a support request to my ISP as I haven't been able to get ipv6 working reliably, I guess now I can look forward to a tri-stack setup that works equally well.
I'd love to read the response ;-)
I think it will be quite boring, afaik they fully support IPv6 and I think it’s just my router that’s misconfigured. Or is it?! I thought IPv6 was supposed to be easier?! In any case, I’ll let you know if I ever work it out!
The central operational concept in IPv8 is the Zone Server -- a paired active/active platform that runs every service a network segment requires: [...] and IPv4/IPv8 translation (XLATE8)
Missed an opportunity to call it XL8!
It says IPv8 is a proper subset of IPv4, such that "no modification to IPv4 device required". Yet it replaces the version field with 8 and extends the header by 8 bytes. That's not backwards compatible?