You may have heard this before, but we are really, really running out of public IPv4 addresses.
Found in the comments :
Actually IPv5 would have done it; just add an extra octet.
Okay; it's a bit more complicated than that but I think everyone would have understood it, got behind it, and embraced it more readily than IPv6.
They could have extended the first octet to be 16-bit and most people would have hardly noticed any change, just discovered 256.x.x.x to 65535.x.x.x had sprung into existence. Yes, things would have had to change to support that, but probably not half as much as they have had to in adding IPv6 support.
And maybe they could have added a trailing octet or two, used that like a TCP/IP port to specify a local device on the LAN if included, with a 0 default if not.
It's not perfect, but I would expect everyone who understands IPv4 reading this can understand the proposal while I suspect most haven't a clue when it comes to IPv6. The problem with IPv6 is it attempts to do more than just solve the shortage of IPv4 addresses; KISS.
==> Can't decide whether this is a troll or this guy is serious :-D
And for the record, I'm not sure the "4" in "IPv4" is there to remind that addresses are 4 bytes long. Anyway, IPv6 addresses are DEFINITELY NOT 6 bytes long, but 16 bytes long (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6#Address_representation