My whole point is that its irrelevant what we did or didn't do, because hardware routers are not software reconfigurable. Whether you expand the address space a little or a lot is irrelevant, because it will cost exactly the same to replace that hardware - in which case, if you have to expand the address space you should expand it by the most you possibly can in order to ensure you don't ever have to replace those routers again.
The justification of why NAT is no longer necessary is nice in a theoretical sense but a pain in the butt if I'm trying to convert my network.
The mapping of IPv4 to IPv6 occurred in 2006 with https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4291
You can't just link to a long article and claim it shows things are different. What specific differences are you bothered about?
> The justification of why NAT is no longer necessary is nice in a theoretical sense but a pain in the butt if I'm trying to convert my network.
Having used IPv4 networks that used all publicly routeable addresses and ones that did not, the former have always been much nicer, even at a purely practical level of "I want to connect to my work VPN and have it work".
It is a long article listing all the differences - my original question was why did they decide to make all those changes instead of just expanding the address space. All of the changes except for the change to the size of the address space bother me.
> Having used IPv4 networks that used all publicly routeable addresses and ones that did not, the former have always been much nicer, even at a purely practical level of "I want to connect to my work VPN and have it work".
Did you setup your work network for IPv6 or did someone else do it?
My original question was about what justified an obvious problematic change that is celebrating 20 years with only a 10% adoption.
What specific changes? Give me your top 3.
> Did you setup your work network for IPv6 or did someone else do it?
My work network isn't set up for IPv6, that's where I had the problem.
> My original question was about what justified an obvious problematic change that is celebrating 20 years with only a 10% adoption.
What makes you think an address-space-only change would have been less "problematic" or more rapidly adopted? Because as far as I can tell there's no significant difference between "just expanding the address space" and IPv6.