@landley @jschauma @ryanc @0xabad1dea yeah, the exhaustion problem would've been shoved back with a #64bit or sufficiently delayed by a 40bit number.

Unless we also hate #NAT and expect every device to have a unique static #IP (which is a #privacy nightmare at best that "#PrivacyExtensions" barely fixed.)

• I mean they could've also gone the #DECnet approach and use the #EUI48 / #MAC-Address (or #EUI64) as static addressing system, but that would've made #vendors and not #ISPs the powerful forces of allocation. (Similar to how technically the #ICCID dictates #GSM / #4G / #5G access and not the #IMEI unless places like Australia ban imported devices.

I guess using a #128bit address space was inspired by #ZFS doing the same before, as the folks who designed both wanted to design a solution that clearly will outlive them (way harder than COBOL has outlived Grace Hopper)...

• Personally I've only had headaches with #IPv6 because not only do I only have #IPv4only #Internet but my #ISP refuses to allocate even a singe /64 to me (but has no problem throwing in a free /29 of #IPv4's in with my contract!)and stuff like #HurricaneElectric / #HEnet's #Tunnelbroker fail face first due to #Geoblocking and the fact that #ASNs get geolocated, not their #PoPs...

If I was @BNetzA I would've mandated #DualStack and banned #CGNAT (or at least the use of CGNAT in #RFC1918 address spaces) as well as #DualStackLite!