That is absolutely true but the main driver behind the replacement is the increased address space. None of the other changes seems to have been a driver at all.

So as far as the consumers go IPv4 is 'good enough' and if and when IPv6 will finally take over it will remain the de-facto world wide networking protocol used to power the internet for a very very long time.

Cisco attempting to drive a wedge between IPv4 and IPv6 in the midst of this (very very slow) transition seems like a very strange move to me, almost certainly bound to fail or in the end not replacing IPv4/IPv6 but maybe ending up as a transport layer underneath it (killing most of the advantages it would offer in the process).

And that's besides trying to replace TCP which would require re-writing/adapting of virtually every computer program active on the net today.

I don't know that they're trying to drive a wedge between IPv4 and IPv6. I would think that even NDN's supporters see it as a very long-term, post-IPv6 development.

I am surprised however to see Cisco supporting this. It's one thing to have some academic networking specialists writing papers about NDN, but for a major corporation to devote resources to a 10+ year development project with an unproven architectural basis strikes me as odd.

Cisco was involved with it since at least of 2012. They actually wrote software in the protocol as well. It was for video conference if I recall correctly.