[cornholio]

You can't have the best features of the two - in the sense of interoperability - because they are different on a fundamental level: it's impossible for IPv4 nodes to talk to IPv6 nodes without understanding the much larger address space.

There were proposals back in the day (early 90s) for IPng (IP Next Gen, as IPv6 was called back then) to be a hierarchical routing algorithm, that could have kept backwards compatibility with IPv4 and transparently allow seamless operation and routing of IPng islands over IPv4 infrastructure, taking full advantage of the address space expansion.

Think of a sort of CGNAT that instead of stateful hacking with port numbers and the like, would have dedicated fields in the IPv4.x packet, allowing the gateway to statelesly route between the two domains (public IPv4 internet and internal 10.x.x.x network), while maintaining end-to-end connectivity.

Alas, the ITEF guys really wanted a clean slate design and willfully ignored the economic problem, that IPv6 is only useful when everybody upgrades, and as a consequence nobody upgrades. It's probably one of the most costly failures in the history of computing, along with the NULL pointer, 640kB and the likes.

[ripdog]

42% of the internet uses v6, and rising. The economic incentives for ISPs absolutely exist, as v4 addresses become ever more expensive and the cost of CG-NAT deployments continue to climb.

[cornholio]

> v4 addresses become ever more expensive and the cost of CG-NAT deployments continue to climb.

But IPv6 is not an alternative to CGNAT. If you don't provide either a routable IPv4 or CGNAT, your customers will ask their money back because their internet is broken. The fact that you provide IPv6 or not is completely irrelevant to the vast majority of consumers or businesses.

This here is the major failure of IPv6 design, confusing what "the internet as a whole and the ISP community" need, with the individual incentives that make a single ISP provide for those needs.