> What we needed was an internet protocol with the benefits of IPv6 that runs as an extension to the IPv4 stack.
My understanding is that the reason it's a new version is so existing IPv4 infrastructure would not need to be changed. This "ships in the night" approach has pros and cons, of course, but I'm personally happy to give folks who thought about this problem for many years the benefit of the doubt.
> The current approach to duplicate everything into IPv6 is wasteful and time consuming, proven by the extremely slow adoption rate.
The beauty of the IPv6 approach is that it doesn’t matter how long it takes.
I don't understand how it's "wasteful". Is it wasteful to support 3 versions of HTTP?
My understanding is that the reason it's a new version is so existing IPv4 infrastructure would not need to be changed. This "ships in the night" approach has pros and cons, of course, but I'm personally happy to give folks who thought about this problem for many years the benefit of the doubt.
> The current approach to duplicate everything into IPv6 is wasteful and time consuming, proven by the extremely slow adoption rate.
The beauty of the IPv6 approach is that it doesn’t matter how long it takes.
I don't understand how it's "wasteful". Is it wasteful to support 3 versions of HTTP?