> Very few, in my prediction.

Sure, I agree. I'm not sure how you got the notion that I thought a large percentage of systems out there will never get IPv6 support. There's a lot of solid systems out there that just fucking run. They're a small percentage of all of the deployed machines in the world.

> That's still what I would call a v6-only (with translation mechanisms) client deployment.

When people say "IPv6 only", they mean "Cannot connect to IPv4 systems". IMO, claiming it means anything else is watering down the definition into meaninglessness. Consider it in the context of what someone means when they envision a future where the Internet is "IPv6 only", so we don't need to deal with the "trouble" and "headache" of running both v4 and v6.

> We're already seeing massive v6 + CG-NAT-only deployments these days...

Yeah, it's my understanding that that's been the situation for a great many folks in the Asia/Pacific part of the world for a while now. Lots and lots of hosts, but not much IPv4 space allocated.