@nixCraft >Why is IPv6 such a failure? Is it next to impossible to go with IPv6?
It's not - it works beautifully even with a high latency 6in4 tunnel (courtesy of Hurricane Electric).
You can really tell if a site is of poor quality if it doesn't have AAAA records.

I tried out a pure IPv6 network with an IPv4 optimized setup (it seems that the browser kept getting A records before AAAA records, but after refreshing the page all decent sites worked) and it did work.


>Is compatibility the issue because of legacy devices and apps?
No, as pretty much every OS updated since 2006 has support for IPv6, but of course there are a bunch of devices running proprietary software that are IPv4-only (since IPv6 support was disabled).

>What is going on?
ISP's saving $10 now even though it'll cost them $1000 in the future.

@peturdainn >it's probably easier/cheaper to put big chunks behind NAT
It's really not easier - NAT is a nasty hack that causes massive brokenness, plus you really need to use DHCP which is a nasty hack as well.

I really reckon CGNAT is more expensive than enabling IPv6.

IPv6 has SLAAC, which is excellent, as there's usually no configuration required - you just connect the client and it works (DHCPv6 should be avoided like the plague).

It's cheaper if you're looking to save $10 now, but cost yourself $1000 in the future.