Internet Protocol Version 8 (IPv8)

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

A new Internet-Draft proposing “IPv8” — a 64‑bit, backward-compatible extension of IPv4 that bakes authentication and management (e.g., OAuth2/JWT, centralized “Zone Servers”) into the network layer — is drawing strong skepticism. Commenters argue it repeats IPv6’s deployment challenges while adding surveillance- and censorship-friendly features, conflating routing, identity, and policy in ways that would centralize control and break existing assumptions about how the Internet operates. Many view it as technically incoherent, practically undeployable, and unlikely to progress within the IETF process.

Overall reaction

  • Majority view the IPv8 draft as unserious, unworkable, or “speculative fiction”; several call it dead on arrival.
  • A few find it intellectually interesting as a thought experiment, or as “what IPv6 addressing could have been,” but still reject the full design.

Backward compatibility and transition claims

  • Draft claims IPv4 is a proper subset of IPv8 and that no devices or applications must change.
  • Multiple commenters argue this is impossible: version field and header length differ, so existing IPv4 stacks, routers, NICs, and firewalls will drop or misparse IPv8 packets.
  • The spec also introduces new APIs (AF_INET8), DNS records (A8), ARP8, ICMPv8, routing protocols, and firmware requirements, contradicting “no modification required.”

Security, surveillance, and OAuth/JWT

  • Strong concern that “OAuth2/JWT on every manageable element/packet” bakes authentication and identity into L3.
  • Many see this as inherently censorship- and surveillance-friendly, enabling tracking of every connection and killing anonymity and peer-to-peer use.
  • Several note the bootstrap problem: you need network access to obtain a token, but the network requires a token. Details on trust, protection scope, and mechanics are described as vague or circular.

Addressing model vs IPv4/IPv6

  • IPv8 proposes 64-bit addresses, presented as more “human friendly” with dotted decimals.
  • Some like “more dots” over IPv6’s hex format; others say memorability is a non-issue and DNS should be used anyway.
  • Critics argue this offers IPv6’s migration and complexity problems with fewer benefits, and doesn’t solve mobile/roaming challenges.

Routing, ASNs, and architecture

  • IPv8 ties routing directly to ASNs and hands each ASN a fixed block; routing table bounded at one entry per ASN.
  • Commenters say this conflates identity and location, breaks current multihoming and provider-change patterns, and would require orders of magnitude more ASNs.
  • “Cross-AS Cost Factor” is criticized for assuming inter-operator trust in shared metrics, contrary to why BGP is policy-based today.

Centralization and operational model

  • Mandated “Zone Servers” bundle DNS, DHCP, NTP, auth, telemetry, ACLs, etc., on fixed addresses, seen as a dangerous single point of failure and control.
  • East–west isolation and forced cloud-mediated access (e.g., for printers or file shares) are mocked as impractical and overly cloud-centric.

Meta-discussion

  • Several note that anyone can publish an Internet-Draft and this one currently has no IETF standing.
  • Some speculate it may be AI-assisted or “vibe-written,” pointing to buzzword-heavy sections and lack of concrete mechanisms.