https://www.tutorialspoint.com/ipv4/ipv4_packet_structure.htm https://www.tutorialspoint.com/ipv4/ipv4_packet_structure.ht... The IPv4 packet structure looks l

https://www.tutorialspoint.com/ipv4/ipv4_packet_structure.htm https://www.tutorialspoint.com/ipv4/ipv4_packet_structure.ht... The IPv4 packet structure looks like it has a lot of leeway to evolve/handle/crossmap to ipv6. especially with the version and "option" sections. So ipv6 came out almost 24 years ago. And its adoption is a disaster. It's adoption rate was a disaster at the decade mark. I don't understand why ipv4 wasn't evolved to interoperate with ipv6 at whatever level was necessary (servers, OS, routers). I don't understand why there isn't an evolved ipv4 that can route ipv6 and ipv4 traffic to the same application endpoints. I don't understand why there isn't a section of ipv6 address space that is "special" that contains all of ipv4 + possible ports for NAT. I'm sure there are reasons, but I've also seen a lot of dogma from ipv6 people over the years that comes off as my way or the highway. But why you can't get the big boys in the room in the modern corporate-consolidated internet (AWS, MS, FAANG, US government, europeans, mobile carriers etc) and work out how to get ipv6 transitioned. To me, ipv6 was always a lot like the security group at large companies: they dictated a policy, tried to enforce compliance, but never offered solutions. And solutions is what gets your policy or protocol adopted.