...is that even new devices don't support IPv6, even when they're in entirely controlled address spaces.
For example, why the hell don't, for example, cell phones internet capabilities have IPv6? I mean the IPv6 routing would seem exactly designed for cell phones, devices external to the network don't need to reach them, and it's a frickin closed system with device upgrades fairly quickly. If we can't even use IPv6 in closed systems like that, it has failed.
1. 95% of the cellphones in existence don't last much longer than a couple of years
2. Most people get new cellphones when they renew yearly or bi-yearly
3. Just because the cellphone industry does not implement something does not mean it is "epic fail", by that logic this world is full of fail.
The reason, of course, is because IPv6 is, in fact, an EPIC FAIL in actually working, because no one apparently bothered to figure out any sort of actual transition for it.
Again, you've got a funny definition of failure considering IPv6 is already working on many internet backbones and in other instances, some ISPs are using IPv6 for their internal modem addresses now even.
It's like, if instead of self-driving cars, they invented self-driving micro-monorails and expected us to buy them. But, don't worry, they have a handy monorail carrying rack we can install on top of our car that not that hard to set up so we can carry our monorail to the monorail tracks fifty miles away.
This analogy is somewhat amusing and cute in a stupid way..., but it's also is completely inaccurate, the modern internet today is based on layer upon layer of encapsulation, Vlans within QnQ tunnels, MPLS/Tag Switching encapsulations and what-not, not to mention data within TCP headers within packets within frames.
So realisticly we have been carrying monorails on top of other monorails on the roofrack of our car tied to the roof of our other car all this time, encapsulation is not a bad thing, or a rediculous thing, it's how the internet works.
D. J. Bernstein is an ass, but he's right about this.
IPv6 should have been built by changing the damn format of the packets, but using the exact same IPv4 addresses with a specific prefix, routed exactly the same place. Any router that talked to devices that didn't understand IPv6 could just 'dumb it down' to IPv4, and, they should eventually do the same in reverse!
So instead of updating the TCP/IP protocol properly we should encumber it with even more hacks? How is this any different than what can already be done with the tunneling mechanisms already in place?
Besides, you can already embed your ipv4 addresses in your ipv6 address, let's say you did not want to convert your internal network to ipv6, that's cool, you get your 64 bit ipv6 prefix from your ISP, let's say FECE:5:CAFE::, and combine it with your internal addresses, e.g. FECE:5:CAFE::192.168.1.2, although this is not really embedding ipv4 packets in ipv6 packets it will help save your memory.
At some point, as routers and OSes got replaced, large amounts of traffic on the internet would end up being IPv6 their entire distance, and at that point we can start assigning the IPv6 addresses that don't have a equivalent IPv4 one.
Just so you know, ALL ipv4 addresses have something like a 64-bit ipv6 RANGE dedicated to them, but I forget the details exactly.
Also, all the modern major routers(Cisco) and OSes already support IPv6, even windows!
And, incidentally, we should keep the IPv4 network operational forever. 95% of the people can give their IPv4 addresses back, and as people stop connecting IPv4 devices, routers and whatnot will lose the ability to speak to them but there will still be some devices that cannot be upgraded, some embedded device that speaks only IPv4 or whatever.
I bet you a billion trillion dollars that IPv4 will still exist on some private networks in 40 years.
This will probably take the form of a SOHO router with IPv4 NAT overload, and also acting as an IPv6 router, using dual stack system on the computers and the router this will mean that every computer still gets it's private IPv4 address for old applications and such, and also gets it's publicly routable IPv6 address, IPv4 will still most likely be dead in the backbone/service provider level, so it's just IPv6-->Natted private IPv4, but IPv4 will still live on somewhere.
The company should be able to keep an IPv4 address, and require people to install one of the routers that can still upconvert in front of the device, and it gets routed over the internet and back just like anything else, because, for almost all the trip, it's IPv6. There would be no reason to ever turn off the subset of IPv6 that is IPv4.
Instead we invented a new fucking network that doesn't interact with IPv4 at all. Yes, yes, you can get IPv6 versions of IPv4 addresses, but routers and OSes do not automatically translate them. And it's actually against the rules for someone to try to contact a IPv4 server 'over' IPv6. They have to use their IPv4 address, like there should be a difference.
This is just crazy-talk, do you have any idea how un-informed you sound?