Yeah and I’ve worked for a company that stupidly put their vpn service on 192.168.1.0/24 so most peoples home network would act weird as hell whenever they connect to the work vpn. That’s a poor implementation and shouldn’t be done. Address conflicts are certainly annoying especially when it’s a black box but that’s not a reason to shoehorn everything over to IPv6. I can’t imagine a scenario ever existing that I would have any desire for everything in my house to be uniquely reachable to the world. I have a point of presence to the internet behind my Palo Alto, what I do inside there is incredibly simple with IPv4 and interoperates seamlessly with IPv6. This idea that everything needs to be raw dogging the internet, especially with the current state, or lack of, information security makes no sense to me. Talking about IPv6 not being fully implemented as some sort of critique is ignorant, shows a complete lack of use case analysis, usually erodes away after someone spends a year or so in the real world, and isn’t the gotcha folks seem to think it is.

Ok? That use case has been solved. You can still use private IPv4 addressing and everything will just work because carrier service providers have solved those limitations.

They both have use cases and are interoperable. I don’t see why folks think it’s so odd that they are both used and will likely continue to be used. It’s hardly even a topic worth talking about. Seems like one of those things people hear about being around for a long time as an updated standard and it’s some kind of gotcha that not everything uses it…What driver do these people imagine exists to not use IPv4, the addressing limit was solved before IPv6 even hit the street and has only matured and integrated with IPv6 since.