[BurnGpuBurn]

Those are basically the same reasons why I don't use v6 at home and have turned it off in my home router. Everything just works with v4. v6 is a potential source of error and/or security risk.

I haven't felt the need to learn more about v6, and it is quite complex so it'll take me a day or so to learn enough to be able to configure my network and know that I haven't screwed that up. But I keep putting that off. There's far more interesting stuff to learn and do.

I would've gladly accepted and adopted a version that's just IPv4 plus 16 bits of extra address space, and anything else exactly the same. That would've solved the original address shortage problem, and would be a breeze to configure.

For me, and I think for a lot of people, the complexity and thus cost of v6 dwarfs the potential benefits and therefore that complexity is the primary force holding back its adoption.

[vetinari]

I actually find IPv6 simpler than IPv4. It is extra address space plus some warts fixed.

However, at home I'm using IPv4 + henet tunnel, because the native IPv6 offer from the ISP is unacceptable. At work, we are using IPv4 only, and no plans to switch, because it would be extra work with zero benefits.

[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

> I haven't felt the need to learn more about v6, and it is quite complex

No, it isn't.

> I would've gladly accepted and adopted a version that's just IPv4 plus 16 bits of extra address space

That's what IPv6 is for the most part.

> That would've solved the original address shortage problem, and would be a breeze to configure.

So is IPv6.

[pas]

You are right, but it doesn't matter. Because even if v6 is easy to configure, usually the things you can't configure are broken and they are hard to fix. For example your upstream provider is stupid. Or a client's software, or some 3rd party server somewhere you have to live with.