Hardware would catch up. And IPv4 would never go away. If you connect to 1.1.1.1 it would still be good ole IPv4. You would only have in addition the option to connect to 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 if the entire chain supports it. And if not, it could still be worked around through software with proxies and NAT.

▲

hypeatei 2 hours ago | parent [-]

So... just a less ambitious IPv6 that would still require dual-stack networking setups? The current adoption woes would've happened regardless, unless someone comes up with a genius idea that doesn't require any configuration/code changes.

▲

krupan an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I disagree. The current adoption woes are exactly because IPv6 is so different from IPv4. Everyone who tries it out learns the hard way that most of what they know from IPv4 doesn't apply. A less ambitious IPv4 is exactly what we need in order to make any progress

▲

throw0101a 10 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> I disagree. The current adoption woes are exactly because IPv6 is so different from IPv4.

How is IPv6 "so different" than IPv4 when looking at Layer 3 and above?

(Certainly ARP vs ND is different.)

	▲	krupan 3 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I didn't say it was different 'when looking at layer 3 and above". I said it's different from IPv4. At the IP layer.

▲

bc569a80a344f9c 39 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It’s not _that_ different. Larger address space, more emphasis on multicast for some basic functions. If you understand those functions in IPv4, learning IPv6 is very straightforward. There’s some footguns once you get to enterprise scale deployments but that’s just as true of IPv4.

▲

sgjohnson 42 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

But that is a bug in history. IPv6 was standardized BEFORE NAT.

“most what they know from IPv6” is just NAT.

> A less ambitious IPv4 is exactly what we need in order to make any progress

but we’re already making very good progress with IPv6? Global traffic to Google is >50% IPv6 already.

	▲	btilly 7 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Current statistics are that a bit over 70% of websites are IPv4 only. A bit under 30% allow IPv6. IPv6 only websites are a rounding error. Therefore if I'm on an IPv6 phone, odds are very good that my traffic winds up going over IPv4 internet at some point. We're 30 years into the transition. We are still decades away from it being viable for servers to run IPv6 first. You pretty much have to do IPv4 on a server. IPv6 is an afterthought.
	▲	Aloisius 4 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Huh? NAT was standardized before IPv6. NAT is RFC 1631. IPv6 is RFC 1883. Admitted, that was very basic NAT.

▲

hackthemack an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Sort of. I think people would understand

201.20.188.24.6

And most of what they know about how it works clicks in their mind. It just has an extra octet.

I also think hardware would have been upgraded faster.

▲

redox99 42 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

The main thing is keeping current addresses, not having both an ipv4 and ipv6 address.

Just like for an apartment you append something like 5B. And for a house you don't need that.