I listened to it some more, and he goes into this more specifically.
He says that because things has to work behind NAT these days ("or it won't get deployed"), then the effective address space of IPv4 is much larger.
For one it includes the source/destination ports, but in addition those ports can be time-multiplexed, so you get more effective bits out of that. He suggests the effective address space of IPv4 is closer to 52 bits.
On the flip side, in IPv6 the recommendation is for ISPs to hand out /48's. Add a few hosts inside there, and you got an effective address space that's roughly the same as the effective IPv4+NAT address space.
I don't believe that's correct because IPv6 could have time-multiplexed ports, too, which would vastly extend the IPv6 space if the podcaster wants to compare apples to apples.
Yeah I'm note sure I entirely agree with his arguments around the address space.
His other points seem stronger, like how IPv6 is a mess for backbone router hardware due to variable length headers, how to get IPv6 working really well requires you to control the entire network and how it might not matter much since we're moving towards a naming-oriented network. Overall interesting podcast IMHO.
He says that because things has to work behind NAT these days ("or it won't get deployed"), then the effective address space of IPv4 is much larger.
For one it includes the source/destination ports, but in addition those ports can be time-multiplexed, so you get more effective bits out of that. He suggests the effective address space of IPv4 is closer to 52 bits.
On the flip side, in IPv6 the recommendation is for ISPs to hand out /48's. Add a few hosts inside there, and you got an effective address space that's roughly the same as the effective IPv4+NAT address space.
Don't shoot the messenger, listen to the podcast.