It was doomed the moment you had to maintain two separate stacks, each with its own address, firewall rules and so on.

It should have been ipv4 with extra optional bits, so you could have the same rules and everything for both stacks.

I turn it off because it's a risk having one of either stacks malconfigured.

IPv6 should've been a superset of IPv4, as in addresses are shared, not that you have a separate IPv4 and IPv6 address for your server.

▲

kccqzy 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That’s why my home network is IPv6 only. NAT64 and DNS64 and 464XLAT work very well, and you only need to configure IPv4 once: in your router, where you need special configuration anyways.

▲

orangeboats an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Another day, another Godwin's law of networking.

>It was doomed the moment you had to maintain two separate stacks

Pray, tell me, how are we supposed to extend IPv4 with another {insert a number here} bits without creating a new protocol (that neccessitates running two stacks)?

Suppose that you have an old computer that understands only 32 bit addresses -- good ol' IPv4. Let's name it 192.168.10.10.

It then receives a packet from another computer with hypothetical "IPv4+" support, 172.12.10.98.12.4.24.31... ...Wait a minute, it can't, because your old computer understands only 32 bit addresses!

What if we really forced it to receive the packet anyway? It will see that the packet is from 172.12.10.98, because once again, it understands 32 bit addresses only.

It then sends back the reply to... you guessed it, 172.12.10.98. Not 172.12.10.98.12.4.24.31.

Yeah,172.12.10.98.12.4.24.31 will never get its reply back.

Do you see why any "IPv4 with extra octets" proposal are doomed to begin with now?

	▲	redox99 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		It wouldn't be able to receive it. That simple. Which is not a problem, any server would still have an old ipv4 address (172.12.10.98 from your example), like they currently do and probably will for decades.