on its third attempt to migrate to the expansive internet protocol
did they mean to say "expansive" or "expensive"?
I am surprised though that the DoD didn't become involved in the specification early on, so that their issues (security & such) could have been addressed while the spec was in development. Seems precisely the sort of thing they would have wanted a say in.
With all the difficulty of implementation so many companies have dealt in, and the seeming resistance in various areas, maybe we *do* need to go back and re-evaluate the spec, and write a new one. Not expecting such an idea to be easy or quick, but it at least needs to be considered, even if the idea gets rejected later, it could spur on some creative thinking. Or how readily could an extension to the spec be designed for the security-minded, something that looks to the outside to be regular IPv6, but enough additional routing information for the routers at the edge of their networks to know what the traffic really is (and no, I'm not talking about setting the "evil" bit).