It's almost always cited as exactly that: a reason why people are avoiding IPv6, as though it's proof that IPv6 is too hard to use, and that we could all be on it already if only we'd taken his advice.
It also completely misses the real reason we're not further along: people turned out to be willing to tolerate NAT's breakage. If we actually had to have a public IP per device, we'd have switched already. Instead, ISPs said hey, what if we put your entire house/apartment/office/city behind the same IP? And no one got guillotined or anything, so they did. DJB didn't mention that at all.
Comments
It's almost always cited as exactly that: a reason why people are avoiding IPv6, as though it's proof that IPv6 is too hard to use, and that we could all be on it already if only we'd taken his advice.
It also completely misses the real reason we're not further along: people turned out to be willing to tolerate NAT's breakage. If we actually had to have a public IP per device, we'd have switched already. Instead, ISPs said hey, what if we put your entire house/apartment/office/city behind the same IP? And no one got guillotined or anything, so they did. DJB didn't mention that at all.