IPv6 - Why does it have to be complex?

Maybe I'm being silly here, and missing something complex, but wouldn't it have been simple just to allocate the entire IPv4 address space to a 32bit section of the IPv6 address space, and allow IPv4 to simply operate within an IPv6 network?

That is, an IPv6 router would know if it got an address only 32bits long, to stick 96 0's on the front of it, or whatever other prefix is decided for IPv4 address space.

Home users wouldn't even have to do anything or change their IPs, the whole lot would be accessable to anyone that had an IPv6 connection (so allocate them to all new customers) and no kit would HAVE to be replaced by end users (unless they wanted to access things outside the IPv4 address range, which would be small for a long time anyway.

There wouldn't be a need for anyone to change any existing IPs, if they have them memorised or whatever.

Go on, tell me how wrong I am and how I have missed essential points!

Far too simple and sensible a suggestion that surely would be backed by all the router manufacturers who, of course, do not have a vested interest in people having to buy new kit.

This would work as a mechanism to tunnel IPV4 traffic over an IPV6 network but it would not let IPV4 computers to talk to IPV6 computers.

How would my IPV4 computer that can only specify IPV4 addresses talk to an IPV6 computer that can only specity IPV6 addresses?

How would 195.145.34.34 talk to 1701:2342:1234:4322?

I'm still trying to see why NAT is to be killed off. I mean, yes, I understand why it's not needed but the functionality is quite handy. It seems to work perfectly well for nearly every home user so what's the big deal? Why can't I continue to use 192.168.1.x? Let the router map from IPv6 to my internal addresses using NAT.

In reply to a post by Andrue:

I'm still trying to see why NAT is to be killed off.

It's a global conspiracy by Microsoft and the network security companies. They want to remove the free firewall, so you'll be forced to buy one.

Nothing stopping routers doing similar rules to give the security of NAT, but without the various problems it causes e.g. two or more XBox on the same NAT

For you and me perhaps, but not for the average punter. NAT is a very effective, out of the box, free firewall.

Does this not already exist in the form of the ::ffff:0:0/96 network? where the IPv4 address is sent in the least significant 32 bits.