That’s an undefined deal.

Me. I don’t have an hdr screen.

In my opinion NAT is a hack that makes lot of things harder than they should be. STUN and TURN are services that are created because there is no easy way to connect two hosts between different NATs. UPnP for port forwarding is another. CG-NAT is even worse. I have heard of so many people having problems with it.

Breadcast is messy. It is like screaming into a room and waiting for an answer. Multicast lets the computer decide if it wants and needs to listen to a specific group message.

IPv4 didn’t have cidr from the beginning. They only had classes. IPv6 was designed with complex routing and sub routing in mind.

They never wanted to worry about address space size again. And this makes subnetting much easier. I have a /56 allocation so I could do 256 /64 subnets. I hope that at some point home routers will have the option for seperate subnets built in. This way you could easily have guest, IoT, work or whatever networks without NAT.

One thing you have to consider though is that the minimum network size that allows autoconf is /64 and that because of the privacy extension a device usually has 3-4 IPv6 adresses.

IPv6 changed some things. First and foremost it has a huge address space:

• IPv4: 4294967296 (2^32)
• IPv6: 340282366920938463463374607431768211456 (2^128)

Then they simplyfied some things:

• Removed Broadcast in favor of Multicast and Anycast
• Added autoconfiguration without a DHCP server
• Better subnetting support

And much more

IPv6 traffic is globally steady at around 37%. So it isn’t a majority by far.

The perpetual chicken egg problem of IPv6: many users don’t have IPv6 because it’s not worth it because everything is reachable via IPv4 anyways because IPv6 only service don’t make sense because they will only reach a subset of users because many users don’t have IPv6…