You’re advocating a:
( ) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) denial-based
approach to retaining IPv4. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won’t work:
( ) We’re already out of IPv4 addresses
( ) People in Africa also deserve to own IP space too
( ) ISPs in rural and underdeveloped areas need IP space now
( ) Route fragmentation is getting worse
( ) Class E space is permanently blocked in many systems
( ) It will give us more addresses for 2 years and then we’ll be stuck with it
( ) NAT makes security worse, not better
( ) Android will not put up with it
( ) Linus Torvalds will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from ISPs
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) It makes geolocation even worse than it already is
( ) You are re-inventing 464XLAT but worse
Specifically, your plan fails to account for:
( ) You can’t send packets to existing hosts
( ) Existing hosts can’t send packets to new hosts
( ) Kubernetes clusters already easily burn through the entire 1918 space
( ) The 10.x.x.x/8 space is already an overlapping nightmare
( ) Upgrading all routers on the planet, again
( ) Upgrading all firewalls on the planet, again
( ) Adding bytes to IPv4 is the entire problem
( ) Parsing IPv6 addresses isn’t the hard part
( ) AWS won’t support it
( ) ISPs won’t support it
( ) Having to upgrade all software to support it
( ) Needing to create a new DNS type
( ) Legacy operating systems
( ) Extreme profitability of leasing IP space
( ) Smart TVs
( ) Lazy system administrators
( ) Customer premises equipment
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) You haven’t laid out a transition plan
( ) TCP/IP should not be the subject of legislation
( ) CGNAT sucks
( ) Split internet sucks
( ) End to end connectivity is a net good
( ) IP addresses do not identify a person
( ) IP addresses should be free
( ) Globally addressable does not mean globally accessible
( ) Rollout plans must work if phased in gradually
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Not everything that touches the internet is a computer anymore
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Even the staunchest defender of IPv4 will die eventually
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
( ) Sorry dude, but I don’t think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you’re a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) You own a /16 and want to get top dollar for it
( ) You wrote this instead of enabling IPv6