alt Hacker NewsHTTP->HTTPS looks easy in hindsight, but there were plenty of ways it could have gone wrong. They took the path of least resistance, unlike ipv6. I know they're different layers ofc.
To answer the last question, routers would need IPv4+ support, just like ipv6 which already happened. The key is it's much easier for users to switch after. No dual stack, you get the same address, routes, DNS, and middleboxes like NAT initially. ISPs can't hand out longer addrs like /40 until things like DNS are upgraded in-place to support that, but again those are pretty invisible changes throughout the stack.
> To answer the last question, routers would need IPv4+ support, just like ipv6 which already happened.
So exactly like IPv6: you need to roll out new code everywhere.
> The key is it's much easier for users to switch after. No dual stack, you get the same address, routes, DNS, and middleboxes like NAT initially. ISPs can't hand out longer addrs like /40 until things like DNS are upgraded in-place to support that, but again those are pretty invisible changes throughout the stack.
So exactly like IPv6: you need to roll out new code everywhere.
Would organization have rolled out in IPv4+ any differently than IPv6? Some early, some later, some questioning the need at all. It's the exact same coördination / herding cats problem.