"The shit about IPv4" was easy to learn and well documented and supported.

"The shit about IPv6" is a mess of approaches that even the biggest fanboys can't agree on and are even less available on equipment used by people in prod.

IPv6 has failed wide adoption in 30 decades, calling it "easy" is outright denying the reality and shows the utter dumb obliviousness of people trying to push it and failing to realize where the issues are.

▲

nine_k 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Could you share a list of IPv6 issues that IPv4 does not exhibit? Something that becomes materially harder with IPv6? E.g., "IPv6 addresses are long and unwieldy, hard to write down or remember". What else?

	▲	toast0 15 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Traffic shapping in v6 is harder than v4. At least it was for me, because NDP messages were going into the shaping queue, but then getting lost since the queue only had a 128 bit address field, and 128 bits isn't actually enough for local addresses. When the traffic shaping allowed traffic immediately, the NDP traffic would be sent, but if it needed to be queued, the adapter index would get lost (or something) and the packets disappeared. So I'd get little bursts of v6 until NDP entries timed out and small queues meant a long time before it would work again. Not an issue in ipv4 because ARP isn't IPv4 so IP traffic shaping ignores it automatically.