It's not useless. v6 provides a vastly bigger address space. You're making the same mistake djb made: you've identified a problem, but rather than provide a so

It's not useless. v6 provides a vastly bigger address space. You're making the same mistake djb made: you've identified a problem, but rather than provide a solution, all you're doing is insinuating that somebody else should have solved it -- while failing to realize that the problem is unsolvable. If you have a solution, please share it with us. Otherwise, stop criticizing v6 for not having one. As far as I can see, nobody can do it because it's impossible, but you could easily prove me wrong by just telling us how it's done. I actually asked you this before, and you refused to answer. It's time you either put up or shut up. > Tunneling v6 packets to a known anycast that’d bridge the networks would mean that there’d be interoperability. Just to be clear, v6 already has this (it's 192.88.99.1). If this is your solution then v6 can already do it.