There are better things than this hack on top of IP. It won't work. It cannot work because the basic underlying protocols mean that the overhead of routing and other meta-traffic will rapidly overwhelm the scale required for it to work. Can we please stop talking about IPFS as if it could actually work???
Check out Content Centric Networking (ccnx.org) from Parc for something that actually has a chance at being a real solution.
- (b) IPFS layers over CCN extremely well AND generates demand FOR CCN. (i'm a big fan of CCN actually, and want to see it in more and more systems. But CCN has huge adoption problems. Look, we don't even have IPv6 fully deployed yet! So if all IPFS does is generate enough demand for CCN to be fully deployed, we've done a good job.)
- (c) all the routing problems are very real, but can be solved just fine. If you haven't looked deeper at how IPFS actually works instead of short summaries, you'll realize that the IPFS specs define the routing layer as entirely pluggable for this reason: we need to evolve to better and better schemes over time.
Instead of blindly saying "this cannot work", read more first. Understand the systems _goals_, decisions, and roadmap. Ask questions if you're unsure how something could possibly work. Lots of very smart people are working on IPFS and we're doing it because we see that it can indeed (and does) work. Blind negativity does not help CCN, and does not help anyone make better things.
I see the goals and I've seen these exact problems attempting to be fixed in similar ways many times. I think the goals and roadmap are great, but overly idealized. I also think it's important to be skeptical of claims of this sort.
Check out Content Centric Networking (ccnx.org) from Parc for something that actually has a chance at being a real solution.