Veteran network architect proposes IPv8 – to improve IPv4, not leapfrog v6

Veteran network architect James Thain has proposed a new Internet Protocol version called IPv8, aiming to extend and improve IPv4 rather than replace it with IPv6. His draft, submitted as an Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Internet-Draft, outlines a managed network protocol suite designed to resolve IPv4 address exhaustion while maintaining full backward compatibility. Thain’s approach introduces an “area code” system based on Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs) to expand the IPv4 address space without requiring network upgrades or forced migrations. IPv8’s key innovation involves combining a 32-bit ASN with a traditional IPv4 address, creating a new address format that significantly increases the number of available addresses. Each ASN holder would receive over four billion addresses, potentially expanding the IPv4 address space to around 30 trillion unique addresses. While this is far fewer than the vast number of addresses offered by IPv6, Thain argues that it would be sufficient for most organizations and reduce the need for costly and complex transitions to IPv6. Thain’s motivation stems from his view that IPv6 adoption has been slow because it offers limited advantages over IPv4 for many users, except for large-scale operators and hyperscalers. He believes that improving IPv4 is a more practical solution for the majority of network operators, who face address shortages but lack incentives to migrate to IPv6. His proposal also emphasizes compatibility, ensuring that existing devices, applications, and networks would not require modification. The proposal is currently in its early stages, with Thain seeking crowdfunding to develop a testbed to demonstrate IPv8’s capabilities. If successful, IPv8 could offer a new path for network operators to manage address exhaustion and network complexity without the disruption associated with IPv6 adoption. However, as an Internet-Draft, it remains a conceptual contribution subject to community review and debate within the broader internet governance ecosystem.