The essence of IPSec is a mandatory feature of IPv6. I don't see how this could mean anything other than "packets don't have to be encrypted by default, but en

The essence of IPSec is a mandatory feature of IPv6. I don't see how this could mean anything other than "packets don't have to be encrypted by default, but encrypted packets must be allowed to be sent and received at any time". That makes IPv6 very much not orthogonal to the topic at hand. What I'm trying to get to is this: why are they trying to figure out how to encrypt the internet when they can just use IPv6 (presuming that existing implementations support all the "mandatory" features)? The only rational answer I can come up with off the top of my head is if they think governments will have backdoors for transparently observing the traffic unencrypted, but that wasn't mentioned in the article as a rationale for anything.