Realistically no organization has so many endpoints that they need IPv6 on their internal networks. There's no reason to deal with more complicated addressing schemes except on the public Internet. Only the border devices should be using IPv6.

Hopefully if an organization has remote endpoints which are connecting to the internal network over the Internet, they are doing that through a VPN and can still just be assigned IPv4 addresses on dedicated VLANs when they connect.

[–] Olap@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If you don't have ipv6 internally, you probably can't access ipv6 externally. 6to4 gateways are a thing. 4to6? Not so much.

And this is why ipv6 will ultimately take another 20 years for full coverage. If it was more backwards compatible from the starting address-wise then this would all have been smoother. Should have stuck with point separators. Should have assumed zero padding for v4 style addresses rather than a prefix

[–] The_Decryptor@aussie.zone 3 points 1 day ago

If you don’t have ipv6 internally, you probably can’t access ipv6 externally. 6to4 gateways are a thing. 4to6? Not so much.

I'm pretty sure stateful gateways do exist, but it's a massive ball of complexity that would be entirely avoided if people just used native v6.