FWIW the same approach was proposed in the nineties. IIRC the main argument against was that the argument to support it is even worse than for v6. The first few sites to get non-4 addresses aren't reachable by anyone, and have to ask everyone to extend their stack and listen to an endless series of answers along the lines of "our existing stack has IP routing to everyone else, why don't you deal with your problem instead of bothering us".
I guess it's an RFC 1925 reference. Truth 6: If you can make a few specific people responsible for making everyone migrate/extend, life's simpler for everyone (else). And truth 11: 30 years later, the same proposal but garnished with JWT.
IPv10 is a proposed, non-standardized Internet Protocol designed to bridge the gap between IPv4 and IPv6, enabling direct communication between them without complex NAT64/DNS64 translation. Proposed in IETF drafts, it relies on dual-stacked hosts (running both 4 and 6) to create a hybrid packet format, allowing seamless interoperability.
This is pretty standard for specification documents, probably more accurate to say AI sounds like them than the other way around.
Ignoring the particular technologies used (OAuth/JWT) it looks like they’re adding more auth to the devices themselves; think two computers connected to the same network switch not being able to impersonate each other.
FWIW the same approach was proposed in the nineties. IIRC the main argument against was that the argument to support it is even worse than for v6. The first few sites to get non-4 addresses aren't reachable by anyone, and have to ask everyone to extend their stack and listen to an endless series of answers along the lines of "our existing stack has IP routing to everyone else, why don't you deal with your problem instead of bothering us".
I guess it's an RFC 1925 reference. Truth 6: If you can make a few specific people responsible for making everyone migrate/extend, life's simpler for everyone (else). And truth 11: 30 years later, the same proposal but garnished with JWT.
Every outbound connection needs a DNS8 lookup. What prevents this from being abused for censorship?
Also IPv10 [1]
IPv10 is a proposed, non-standardized Internet Protocol designed to bridge the gap between IPv4 and IPv6, enabling direct communication between them without complex NAT64/DNS64 translation. Proposed in IETF drafts, it relies on dual-stacked hosts (running both 4 and 6) to create a hybrid packet format, allowing seamless interoperability.
[1] - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-omar-ipv10/10/
Reads like AI. Not sure what OAuth/JWT has to do with Layer 3.
This is pretty standard for specification documents, probably more accurate to say AI sounds like them than the other way around.
Ignoring the particular technologies used (OAuth/JWT) it looks like they’re adding more auth to the devices themselves; think two computers connected to the same network switch not being able to impersonate each other.
TBQH, I had to check that the publication date was not April 1st.
I guess that now is the opportune time to invoke xkcd: https://xkcd.com/927/