[noAnswer]

This somehow reminds me of some anti EV (Electric Vehicle) people. They accept ICEVs (Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle) as given and normal (ICEVs just exist, the fuel falls from the sky) but dig really deep into an anti EV mindset. They follow anti EV blogs and podcasts. They will tell you how bad EVs are for the environment, how mutch water and cobalt and what not is used for the production without acknowledging that the same is true for ICEVs.

I use IPv6 since 2006 and I just can't see how it can give you "a massive headache". I read a blog post about how overly complex HTTP/3 is. Better ignore it forever and never implement it then. ;-) Also, which successful RFC protocol doesn't have a see of follow-up RFCs?

[Qwertious]

There's a nugget of truth in anti-EV comments, namely 1) EVs are in many ways a mediocre solution (EVs will increase batteries etc needed), and 2) pursuing EVs carries an opportunity cost (public transport will reduce emissions far more than EVs and be substantially cheaper than cars as well, and a $1000 EV subsidy could instead be a free ebike).

That said, EVs are mostly better than ICEVs - "mostly" because performance-heavy applications like long-haul trucking and tractors still benefit heavily from fossil fuels, and in most other applications EVs are still more expensive than ICEVs.

[Spivak]

Yes, but in this case ipv4 source selection is simple.

* if the app specifies a source use that.

* do a route lookup, if the route has a src use that

* if you get no hint, use the first address.