> NOBODY WANTS TO ADOPT IT except by force, even now.
Hi, I've adopted it for many reasons and I'm happy. You'll need to update your count. Seriously though, there's lots of people who adopted it - you'll need some more data for a generalisation like this.
> We have to keep shoehorning apps into 64k ports
With ipv6 you typically get a whole range assigned to your machine rather than a single address. Why expand ports, when you can assign millions of apps to different addresses, with the same port that correctly identifies the service type? As a bonus, this already works with DNS AAAA entries so you don't have to mess with SRV to find the right port.
Hi, I've adopted it for many reasons and I'm happy. You'll need to update your count. Seriously though, there's lots of people who adopted it - you'll need some more data for a generalisation like this.
> We have to keep shoehorning apps into 64k ports
With ipv6 you typically get a whole range assigned to your machine rather than a single address. Why expand ports, when you can assign millions of apps to different addresses, with the same port that correctly identifies the service type? As a bonus, this already works with DNS AAAA entries so you don't have to mess with SRV to find the right port.