From the conclusion:
NAT may be a good short term solution to the address depletion and scaling problems. This is because it requires very few changes and can be installed incrementally. NAT has several negative characteristics that make it inappropriate as a long term solution, and may make it inappropriate even as a short term solution. Only implementation and experimentation will determine its appropriateness.
A few people need to get off their horses and come up with and agree to IPv4². It’s exactly the same as IPv4 except there’s 2 more octets of address space - 48bits for addresses*. Job done. You’d see wide spread adoption in under 2 years and then we can forget about it all and move on with our lives safe from the clutches of IPv6.
I don’t give a crap that doesn’t neatly fit into 32 or 64 bit architectures. It’s more than doable at plenty fast speed and it keeps everything manageable.
And what would be the advantage? It wouldn’t be routable through legacy systems, and you’d run out of addresses in a couple of years again.
What’s bad about IPv6?
It tried to fix everything wrong with IPv4, like shitty multicasting. This made it extra complicated.
If it had just been 128-bit addresses, it probably would have been widely deployed in the 90s. Don’t need to bother at this point, though, just get it done.
Nothing. It fixes the myriad of horrible hacks that are required for ipv4 to somehow still hang on.
Of course companies are sad because transition costs money, even though as usual the open source community did most of the work for them.