i think the big problem with ipv6 has been that there just hasn't been a compelling enough reason for most users to care. it's great for network operators and p

i think the big problem with ipv6 has been that there just hasn't been a compelling enough reason for most users to care. it's great for network operators and planners who worry about things like limited address space, but otherwise, it means nothing to end users other than more cumbersome addresses (and potentially slower routing table lookups). i think a major design goal of something like IPvX would be to eliminate the need for any firewalls, NATs or network partitions. everything would be hardened for the public internet, every datagram would be encrypted, every listening service would be ddos resistant and this would all be handled by the networking stack by default. crucially i think that there would have to be a hook to get end users to use it. i think there's a lot of room for next generation decentralized public internet identity, naming, reputation and commerce protocols. if these next generation services only lived on IPvX and made direct use of expanded address space, then maybe it would be compelling enough for an upgrade. of course there are concerns about replacing all the old networking hardware and the environmental impacts of such, so maybe that could be mitigated by exploiting planned sunsets and also mark a sunset for planned sunsets. spitballing is fun! :)