I am fairly sure the authors do understand this (see: "Most network engineers would laugh this off as an April Fools RFC written by an enterprise architect on buzzword overdrive."). But since the proposal got a lot of attention, responding to it is a public service. And delegating this to an LLM arguably provides an accurate signal as to how much human attention the original proposal deserved :-P
replyThis. While I'm generally opposed to using LLMs to make changes in critical parts of systems, a vibed spec just naturally prompts a vibed implementation.
replyWorse, there is an IPv8, from 1994, the obsolete P internet protocol (PIP) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IP_version_numbers
replyThere was also a second prior "IPv8" proposal from a couple years later by notorious mailing list troll Jim Fleming, which he subsequently expanded to "IPv16"
replyOpenPGP key servers are an internet draft, if memory serves. I guess they don't exist either.
replyIn fairness, they exist by virtue of having working implementations that (at least a few) people actually use, not by virtue of being an Internet-Draft.
replyIt is not an individual I-D, but has been adopted by a working group, and has a chance of actually being published as a RFC.
replythey are disgustingly slow so maybe we need a new draft...
replydeleted
replyThe entire point of the experiment was to take this specific, absurd Internet-Draft (which indeed exists as an active submission) and see what happens if someone actually implements it to the letter instead of just hand-waving it away.
replyLLMs might be able to hallucinate RFC text, but they certainly can't compile a patched Linux 6.6 kernel with a working AF_INET8 socket family, patch musl/iproute2/frr, spawn a 10-node QEMU mesh, and route 112,000 active FIB entries under live traffic.
The source code and commit history are right there in the GitLab repos - feel free to pull the kernel tree and run the test suite yourself.