> with basically no change to the routing, DNS, NAT, etc. Except you're wrong on all of the above. We'd still need a completely different "v4.1" routing laye

> with basically no change to the routing, DNS, NAT, etc. Except you're wrong on all of the above. We'd still need a completely different "v4.1" routing layer, because a /32 could never be a subnet while also being a distinct endpoint, so we'd have to treat any routes smaller than a /33 as being the old IPv4 world while a /33 and bigger would be v4.1. So we still end up with the exact same split, except now our address space is an even bigger fucking mess instead of the clear break v6 is giving us to make a more hierarchical network (eventually getting rid of the ludicrous routing table bloat we currently have, though we really need to come up with a better solution for multi-WAN failover in small networks to avoid everyone and their dog needing an ASN and BGP session to have a HA setup). DNS would still need changes, because the struct for an A record still contains a 32-bit address. Nothing stopped us from using NAT with IPv6, but it sucks and broke end to end connectivity so while we already had to break the world to make the switch why not deal away with the ugly hack while we were at it. There is no world in which any successor to IPv4 did not have a long transition time without government mandates, and that's basically what it is taking to get ISP's and cloud providers to adapt it (the whole reason AWS, Azure, GCP, et. al. are slowly getting their shit together is the US government is mandated to go single stack).