Re: Observations on the IPv4 Falling Sky
IPv6, then called IPng for next generation, got off the ground right around the time that the Internet first appeared poised to run out of addresses in the early 1990s. Two major change took place around the same time, the introduction variable sized subnets (other than the inefficient original class A, B, and C) and the introduction of NAT. The effects of both of these changes was to reduce the speed of IPv4 exhaust, and IPv4 exhaust was the only reason for IPv6. NAT was always the redheaded stepchild of the Internet, and early on it had many problems. But over time the Internet organism got used to NAT and developed workarounds for the most common problems. But the designers and pushers of IPv6 disregarded NAT as the essential element it became, and kept flogging the IPv6 option. Long ago we were supposed to have transitioned naturally through the use of dual-stack, but there was always a lack of economic incentive to even take the half-way step of dual-stacking. Now we have reached (nearly) IPv4 exhaust and IPv6 is nowhere near ready to take over. So we have entered the IPv4 market era, where unused addresses can be sold to those who need them.
The technorati always disregarded NAT, viewing it as degraded Internet or otherwise a technically inferior product. Their assumption was that the natural superiority of IPv6 would provide all the incentive necessary for a timely transition, ignoring the fact that the Internet responds to economic incentives which are completely missing from the IPv6 situation. Now we have ISPs who offer NATted addresses as the default, but upon request will issue a real one. Those requests are few and far between, though.