Understand very little about the problem space and complain about the best-compromise solution that the people who do know what they're talking about came up with. It's a very comfortable position to be in, I recommend it to everyone.
I mean there's several existing solutions, NAT, ipv4 rationing, ip leasing, coexisting with ipv6.
Things look fine to me, the reality is dual stack, a full ipv6 transition is idyllic and pointless.
I'm certainly not the first ipv6 critic, and you may notice the nuance that I didn't advocate for not using it, I just don't advocate dropping ipv4. Furthermore it doesn't matter if I advocate it or not, like a train ipv4 keeps going, it's only ipv6 that is advocated.
Maybe just don't? Let it be IPv4 with more bits, the software is already there so dual stacking isn't so bad, adoption might actually be quick if people didn't have to learn much to implement it.
It'd be compatible (or trivially close) to most of the software that is required to make it work. Which is to say the cost of implementation would be low - not the case with ipv6.
Well again I’m not a network expert but perhaps we could look at the 240.0.0.0/4 reserved for future use block and add more address bytes in the payload or something. It’s not going to be elegant but IPv6 is kinda elegant and failed.
I may not have been clear enough in my suggestion. The idea would be to use this unused block as a special block. Not to fill it up with normal IPv4 allocations.
See my suggestion as some kind of NAT-PT at scale. With a better marketing name and user experience.
The problem is indeed hard because no one manage to find a solution at scale since 3 decades.
No matter what change you make, or how you make it, if you are making more than 4B addresses routable then any existing IPv4 device will not be able to route some addresses, so you will have caused a split in the internet
This is a fundamental and unresolvable problem with "making it backwards compatible"
> The problem is indeed hard because no one manage to find a solution at scale since 3 decades.
The problem is hard because despite everyone's wishes, it's got nothing to do with technology. All migrations are about economics and incentives, IPv6's qualities as a design (it's a long, long way from perfect, but I'd argue that it's good enough) are irrelevant.
Understand very little about the problem space and complain about the best-compromise solution that the people who do know what they're talking about came up with. It's a very comfortable position to be in, I recommend it to everyone.