alt Hacker News> IPv4 isn't perfect, but it was designed to solve a specific set of problems.
IPv4 was not designed as such, but as an academic exercise. It was an experiment. An experiment that "escape the lab". This is per Vint Cerf:
* https://www.pcmag.com/news/north-america-exhausts-ipv4-addre...
And if you think there wasn't politics in iPv4 you're dead wrong:
* https://spectrum.ieee.org/vint-cerf-mistakes
> IPv6 was designed by political process.
Only if by "political process" you mean a bunch of people got together (physically and virtually) and debated the options and chose what they thought was best. The criteria for choosing IPng were documented:
* https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1726
There were a number of proposals, and three finalists, with SIPP being chosen:
* https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1752
> I firmly believe that if they had adopted any other strategy where addresses could be meaningfully understood and worked with by the least skilled network operators, we would have had "IPv6" adoption 10 years ago.
The primary reason for IPng was >32 bits of address space. The only way to make them shorter is to have fewer bits, which completely defeats the purpose of the endeavour.
There was no way to move from 32-bits to >32-bits without every network stack of every device element (host, gateway, firewall, application, etc) getting new code. Anything that changed the type and size of sockaddr->sa_family (plus things like new DNS resource record types: A is 32-bit only; see addrinfo->ai_family) would require new code.
This is a lot of basically sharpshooting, but I will address your last point:
> There was no way to move from 32-bits to >32-bits without every network stack of every device element (host, gateway, firewall, application, etc) getting new code. Anything that changed the type and size of sockaddr->sa_family (plus things like new DNS resource record types: A is 32-bit only; see addrinfo->ai_family) would require new code.
That is simply not true. We had one bit left (the reserved/"evil" bit) in IPv4 headers that could have been used to flag that the first N bytes of the payload were an additional IPv4.1 header indicating additional routing information. Packets would continue to transit existing networks and "4.1" capable boxes at edges could read the additional information to make further routing decisions inside of a network. It would have effectively used IPv4 as the core transport network and each connected network (think ASN) having a handful of routed /32s.
Overlay networks are widely deployed and have very minor technical issues.
But that would have only addressed the numbering exhaustion issues. Engineers often get caught in the "well if I am changing this code anyway" trap.