Comment Re:IPv6 isn't the solution (Score 1) 327
It was designed to be transitioned to gradually.
Nope. For all the reasons I explained to you previously, chief being the fact that IPv6 is 100% incompatible with IPv4 on the wire.
Tunnels were expected to be part of the transition.
True. And just as true is the fact that tunnels only solve half the problem. Yes, they help getting new IPv6 hosts to talk to each other (over a potentially non-IPv6 compliant infrastructure). But they do not solve the bigger issue - getting new IPv6 hosts to talk to existing IPv4-only hosts (like, I don't know... the entire Internet?!).
IPv6 has a very simple backwards compatibility mechanism in it already. Basically, if you want to talk to a v4 host... you use v4.
And once again, I strongly suggest that you should read and understand the term "compatibility". I'll give you a hint: "just use the old protocol at the same time" isn't it!
Why is this insufficient?
Because there are only two possibilities: a) we will be able to keep running IPv4 in the foreseeable (or at least short- and medium-term) future, or b) we will not.
In the first case, why bother to add IPv6 to it (and spend a ton of money and manpower on that)? Just because "it's cool"?
And in the second case, there's no way to do dual stack anymore - and where's your "simple mechanism" then?
I'll hazard a guess and say that you've never worked as a network administrator. Or at least not one that has to explain to non-technical people why they need to spend money on technology (in which case, you have been really lucky