I doubt any endpoints are entirely ipv6.

So it seems like it helps ISPs and large networks router… but they never had problems with address space running out at the high levels and almost all likely need to support v4 anyhow.

I think it’s been long enough to be honest that ipv6 was a spectacular failure by complicating an already complicated system into something no one actually asked for.

No human said “hey, networking sucks. Please make it much harder at my level!!”.

> I doubt any endpoints are entirely ipv6.

Lte and 5G can be v6 only, usually they also have NAT64 and DNS64 so you can get everywhere, but the less stuff that needs v4, the smaller their nat boxes are.

I'm largely with you... I would think they'd take the IPv4 block and have a direct/virtual block that just extends it to more addresses... so it could be an IPv4 NAT or IPv6 direct.

like 1.1.1.1/192.168.45.4 ... for a router that understands IPv6, that's the direct route to the sub-network, otherwise it will have to use IPv4, and the subnet route is treated as NAT and otherwise isolated.

To me, that would make more sense... then internal IPv6 might be practically limited to 10. and 102.168. in the nearer term, but adoption would be MUCH simpler in practice, and distribution would mostly already be established, however unfairly, but can then be broken into single addresses and vNext adoption could be that much quicker as a result of piggybacking.