Trying to re-engine a 747 in mid-air is a challenging operation.

> So IPv6 is about 30 years old, and the testimony being shared is the chair of the group spending years of research and millions of dollars, finally launching ipv6 corporate lans in 2023.

And how many years of research and millions of dollars was spent in the 1990s on IPv4? People used to use workstations as routers (e.g., see SunOS routeadm(1M)) and DNS caching servers before a lot of money was poured into ASICs for routing (and switching).

There are all sorts of dumbass things with IPv4: how much time has been wasted on engineering solutions around NAT (e.g., STUN/TURN/ICE)? But because IPv4 just happens to be the default we accept them as 'normal' and anything that is different is treated as 'abnormal'.

> You're not selling me on it's viability.

I'm not sure how it's not viable given there are mobile telco networks with tens (hundreds?) of millions of people getting only IPv6 addresses on their devices.

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNMNglk_CvE

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGbxCKAqNUE

There are some folks who (a) were lucky enough to get in early on the IPv4 address land rush, or (b) are rich enough to be able to purchase IPv4 addresses, but there are also (c) plenty of folks who are left with scraps for IPv4 connectivity. The fact that you happen to fall into (a) or (b) does not mean you get to dismiss the folks in (c) who need IPv6, as otherwise they'd have no connectivity at all.

can you clarify the point you're trying to make? to me this sounds like more of the shaming approach, which doesn't resolve the effort needed.