The most consequential one for slowing adoption was 128-bit addresses, because they are long and thus hard to remember or type. A 16-bit 4-tuple would be workable.
Also the post leaves something out that I think is equally bad: that hideous user hostile :-separated ASCII form. Just fixing this could really help adoption. What were they thinking? Using a character that requires a shift? And conflicts with the URL format?
“Use DNS” is the usual answer, and is a quick way to tell someone has never done IT or networking in the real world. DNS is a fragile inflexible protocol that requires standing up servers. It works for what it does but it does not eliminate the need for engineers to schlep IPs around.
Really? Not just being ipv4 with a bigger address space has slowed it down for my org. Too much auto magic configuration and dhcpv6 feeling like an afterthought and getting consistent behavior on different Linux network configuration manage systems has sucked
Also the post leaves something out that I think is equally bad: that hideous user hostile :-separated ASCII form. Just fixing this could really help adoption. What were they thinking? Using a character that requires a shift? And conflicts with the URL format?
“Use DNS” is the usual answer, and is a quick way to tell someone has never done IT or networking in the real world. DNS is a fragile inflexible protocol that requires standing up servers. It works for what it does but it does not eliminate the need for engineers to schlep IPs around.