alt Hacker NewsIPv6 seems to be a great fit for 1) mobile devices, 2) massive data centers and 3) literally nothing else.
I have met zero network engineers who wanted to put IP version 6 in their network. It causes all sorts of problems and presents all sorts of security risks without much benefit other than the obvious one. In the data center, NAT is a feature, not a bug.
Instead, they provision IPv6-enabled load balancers and pass traffic back to load bearing servers using ipv4 instead.
It's a classic example of "this is the next best thing everyone should use it" which achieves some adoption but it's not really the next best thing. It's not the be all end all it purports to be.
We should just admit to ourselves that we need one kind of ip stack in some situations and another in another.
20 years ago there were a lot of peer to peer applications. For example, Skype used to bounce calls across peers. Now, all calls gets routed through big-brother Microsoft.
NAT and American assymmetric bandwidth ISPs both killed this business model and now we are stuck with tech monopolies like Cloudflare. I see this ipv4-only strategy as another monopoly tactic to kill competition.
And in Asia, it is getting more difficult not to get stuffed behind a double NAT (CGNAT), which means you can't even play games without using big-brother rent-seeker services (no port-forwarding/upnp). But at least here you get ipv6 for free and everything just works.