This is interesting: zdnet.com/article/…

@YLearn Yes, and I expected something like this, but from some different, more-eastern sources, and now that there is precedent, we may be able to expect others will follow suit. At least this was not a mandate to switch, only to also offer.

What Vint Cerf explained to me was that this should be the last version of IP, and we will switch to something completely different in the future because we have reached the limit of this architecture. I'm not sure about that because people really hate change, but he may be correct.

Yup. Heard that reasoning too. But in my mind while whatever protocol it may turn out to be, it will have to co-exist with IP for some time and may even be called/referred to as "IP something or other." But whatever it may be called, regulation that says you need to provide IPv6 doesn't automatically become negated when IPv6 is obsolete unless it explicitly says so (and many tech based regulations in my experience do not plan that far out).