With the luxury of hindsight, allowing an admixture of 32-bit and 64-bit addresses strikes me as an obviously clean solution to the one real problem IPv6 solves. But in 1992, that was a complete non-starter.

A decade later, when IPv6 had real-world deployments was far to late for 6to4 to save the day: entirely because a swath of non-6to4 addresses existed and needed to be reachable. Given no strategic gain apparent for upgrading the commercial core, aligning financial interests by upgrading past the edge instead would absolutely have made sense. Unfortunately the hard parts the engineers anticipated in the early 90s were not the ones that held IPv6 back.

In summary, I agree: 6to4 could have been great!

The fact that IS-IS survived as a relevant IP routing protocol says a lot on its own.

But aside from that, I actually do think we could have baked address extensions into the existing packet format's option fields and had a gradual upgrade that relied on that awful bodge that was (and is) NAT. And had a successful transition wherein it died a well-deserved death by now. :-)

It still would have been a ton of work, but we could have just had what IPv6 claimed to be: IPv4 with bigger addresses. Except after the upgrade, there'd be no parallel system. And all of DJB's points apply: https://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html

Embedding the address extension using the extension mechanism built into IPv4 would have allowed for a true upgrade and a single IP address space. Two nodes with eight-byte IP addresses would exchange packets without any rewriting. That's an address-space expansion, not just a weird way to do NAT. With perfect foresight, I have no doubt the IETF could have embraced NAT as a transition technology quickly obsoleted by broad adoption.

But when IPv6 was standardized, a pure upgrade to IPv4 was still feasible. IPv4 allows for extensions headers and middleboxes hadn't yet imposed protocol ossification. If instead of the encapsulation the article supposes, the upgrade embraced translation, we could have had an IPv4+ with NAT fallback. A node on a network behind a IPv4+ router would send out a packet with the RFC1918 interior address encoded as the address extension. Either the server (which would have a proper IPV4 address) responds without the extension header, at which point the IPv4+ router at the edge has to do NAT-style connection tracking, or the response packet can be forwarded as-is.

All the pain of upgrading software to a new protocol still applies, with the added headache of variable length addresses (4 bytes, 8 bytes, potentially more). But no ISP has to make the investments or take the risk of the parallel infrastructure. The IPv4 core carries on, with incremental improvements but zero mandatory upgrades.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzt36EGKEZo

[2] https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/discussions/115627#discuss...

  SendInput {Raw}%ClipBoard%`

rather than consult the manpage yet again. When I want those semantics, I tack on the self-referential dot. `rsync foo/bar/. baz`

If you're asking package managers to facilitate such a morally compromised relationship, your best bet is to make user intent explicit and circumscribed. One way to signal that intent might be to adopt a trust-on-first-use approach:

  > rustup --detect-mitm
  MITM thumbprint: 567d3e4c...
  > rustup --permit-mitm=567d3e4c...