> but then we'd be stuck with IPv4-based IPv6 addresses forever. Yep, but would that have been so bad? Certainly with IPv6's 128-bit addresses, there would st

> but then we'd be stuck with IPv4-based IPv6 addresses forever. Yep, but would that have been so bad? Certainly with IPv6's 128-bit addresses, there would still be enough space to go around… Though admittedly, when I see "IPv4 with more bits" hypotheticals, they often involve smaller addresses than IPv6.