Tell HN: IPv6-only still pretty much unusable
IPv6 has been one of the biggest failures in the last couple of decades.<p>And I don&#x27;t mean adoption, I mean the standard itself.<p>If IPv6 were IPv4 with more octets, then we would all have been using it for like a decade.<p>Yes, I understand it would still require some breaking changes, but it would have been a million times easier to upgrade, as it would be a kind of superset of IPv4 (1.2.3.4 can be referred as 0.0.0.0.1.2.3.4).<p>Not having two sets of firewall rules and two sets of everything. I always disable IPv6 because it can bite you so hard when you don&#x27;t realize that you are wide open to IPv6 connections because of different firewalls.<p>Edit: To make everything a bit clearer, the idea with this &quot;ipv4+&quot; is that you don&#x27;t need the complexity of running both ipv4 and ipv6 as you do now.<p>And regarding compatibility, with ipv4+ if you have a 0.0.0.0.x.x.x.x ip address you would be able to talk to both ipv4+ aware and legacy ipv4 devices natively without any tunneling (because you also own the legacy, non quad 0 ip address). If you don&#x27;t have such &quot;quad 0 ip&quot; (you are 1.1.1.1.x.x.x.x), only ipv4+ aware devices would be able to to connect to you, and for you to connect to non ipv4+ aware devices you would need either tunneling, or having a secondary, cgnat, &quot;quad 0 ip&quot;.