> I think adopting it would have happened within a reasonable timeframe if it weren't as ambitious.

There's zero proof that an "extended IPv4" would have been adopted on a "more reasonable" timeframe, no matter how you define "reasonable" (faster, I guess is what you are arguing for?).

Exactly where and how do you expect "just add more address bits to IPv4" is an easier transition than IPv6?

The IPv4 header is a fixed size. You can't add more address bits without breaking existing routers. Period. End of technical story. You could embed the additional address bits in the next layer up (TCP/UDP) but you greatly increase the complexity of routing equipment by making it have to understand those layers, to what benefit? In the dual-stack real world we do that all the time with VPNs and STUN tunnels and other gateways and tunnels. We have those exact same tools, already, and those haven't made the transition any more "reasonable", have they?

But it's worse that while routers don't understand the extra bits, the parts of the addresses that get used (the prefixes small enough to fit in IPv4 headers) have to become massive NAT gateways and become massive gatekeepers of huge parts of the IP address space. We know from deep experience that IPv4 address allocation wasn't "equitable" (ARIN got way more space than RIPE and both got more space than AFRINIC and so on; companies like Microsoft and GE got /8 allocations just for asking in the right years).

Does it make that much sense to establish existing IPv4 holders as the forever "landlords" of the internet? That seems to me to only add more incentives to make the transition more unreasonable than IPv6: why support router initiatives that understand the additional address space when the IPv4 address holders can get "extra rent" if they don't, presumably charging all their "downstream" traffic for their gateway usage? We're in a time where IPv4 addresses have noticeable rental costs, I can't imagine what that would be like in a world where large parts of address space have to be on VPNs controlled by IPv4 owners. That doesn't sound to me like a good present or future for the IP protocol, no matter what.

It's honestly not that hard. Looking at your other posts, you think it's hard because you're unfamiliar with it, because you're trying to overcomplicate it, and because you're trying to do everything all at once rather than gradually.

None of these things are IPv6's fault.

Hell, give me remote access to your network and I'll set it up for you -- at least enough to get you started on it if not 100% on every single thing. I don't expect you'll take me up on that offer, but it'd be easier to just do it than tell you about it, since you can't tell people anything: http://habitatchronicles.com/2004/04/you-cant-tell-people-an...

Why is it so painful for you? As someone that has been running everything dualstack for over a decade I'm seriously interested where people are struggling with it.

The only pain I've ever seen is in corporate networks where all the tooling around the network management are IPv4 only but those would break even if you add a single bit to an IPv4 address.