[imoverclocked]

Despite the article title, IPv6 is not the complication. The problem is that IPv4 is incumbent and IPv6 has to live along side of it. It doesn’t matter how it’s done, the dual stack nature of expanding the addressing system will always exist.

[tardedmeme]

this is why people keep inventing nonsense like ipv8 which is worse than ipv6 in every possible way but they think because ipv6 has problems and ipv8 isn't ipv6, ipv8 doesn't have exactly the same problems.

[hackeraccount]

Dual stack isn't a terrible experience it's just usually bad. I wonder if more effort should have been put into making dual stack good instead of making IPv6 good?

Would that have been possible? No clue but my instinct is that most design decisions are trade offs and if you can imagine a trade there's someone out there clever enough to make it happen.

[imoverclocked]

IMHO, the worst thing about dual-stack is that you have to do it at all. There are translation mechanisms but that doesn’t help when you have local devices (maybe IoT?) that don’t support IPv6.

[jcgl]

I think that's why this new IPv6-Mostly stuff is so exciting. You can dual stack a network segment if some of those v4-only devices exist there, but IPv6-Mostly will make sure that the other devices stay on v6 (translated or native).