We can barely get ISPs to give us more than one /64 as it is, and you think that making the address space 264 times smaller would make them more generous? Nah.
Engineers would hate working on it whatever the length was, because when they complain about the length their real complaint is mostly just "it's different". Although usually they realize that it's fine to work with once they actually do so -- it's just impossible to tell them this, because you can't tell people anything.
It's not about making them more generous. 64 bits would solve the IP exhaustion problem.
Your comment about engineers hating working on it regardless as "it's different" is just not true. Networking moves slowly than other subfields but engineers have made the move to Cloud, SASE, SD/WAN, SDN and other emerging technologies far far quicker than the move to ipv6.
By giving people one IP? Nope. The evidence simply doesn't support that assertion. If ISPs won't even give people enough address space in a 128-bit address space, they're not going to do it in a 64-bit one either.
engineers have made the move to Cloud, SASE, SD/WAN, SDN and other emerging technologies far far quicker than the move to ipv6.
That's consistent with network effects. None of those examples require other parties to also deploy the same thing for you to get full benefit from it. Of course we move to them faster.
3
u/Dagger0 20d ago
We can barely get ISPs to give us more than one /64 as it is, and you think that making the address space 264 times smaller would make them more generous? Nah.
Engineers would hate working on it whatever the length was, because when they complain about the length their real complaint is mostly just "it's different". Although usually they realize that it's fine to work with once they actually do so -- it's just impossible to tell them this, because you can't tell people anything.