Why should I pay for services I'm not using?

There aren't any websites that are IPv6-only, and until there are, telling me to vote with my wallet is pointless.

If VOIP is harder to configure under the cheaper service, then it's a question of how much you value your time. Maybe for you the cheaper option is the better choice, but maybe for someone else it wouldn't be.

Likewise for gamers. Often IPv6 is lower latency or again easier to configure. For some people that's worth paying money for.

Ultimately as IPv4 addresses get more expensive and IPv6 equipment becomes cheaper, the costs will shift, and the benefits will remain.

> Often IPv6 is lower latency or again easier to configure. For some people that's worth paying money for.

There are no games that use IPv6 unless you are on Xbox One which uses IPv6.

World of Warcraft: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-myQeNb9SnGo/VHGakel_c5I/AAAAAAAADQ...

Can you really play games using IPv6? You would need all the other players in the same party to use IPv6. That would severely limit who you can play with in the UK.

I think some games will connect peer-to-peer by default, and fall back to relaying via a central server in the case of NAT (particularly CGNAT or double-NAT cases that can't be bypassed by the usual techniques). So NATed players can still play, but players on IPv6 or directly internet-connected IPv4 get the best experience.

Your original comment was:

> I'm frankly tired of dealing with the incompatibility.

My point is that you have a choice. As lmm correctly points out, it's how you value your time.

I think you misunderstood; Perhaps I was unclear.

I can often get an IPv6 address that fails to work: I'll do DNS lookups and get a huge delay while connectivity fails-over onto the Internet (IPv4). Hotels are worse.

The best solution right now is to disable my OS's IPv6 support which is positively insane if the goal is to get everyone to do the opposite.

The thing is, IPv6 proponents want me to do something (vote? switch? not really sure), but don't equip me with the ability to do it smartly. Instead I get derided by people who judge me for not being smart enough, or valuing my time enough (wtf?) to switch to IPv6. Like I'm somehow holding back progress.

If you get a broken IPv6 address from a network, then that network is broken. It's no different from having a DHCP server hand out the wrong DNS server IPs - blame the guy who can't configure the equipment properly rather than the underlying technology. FWIW, after 10 years of extensive travel and hooking onto whatever hotel/conference/shop network you can imagine, I've seen broken DNS, broken routes and broken proxies - yet to see broken IPv6 though. Hey ho.

> The thing is, IPv6 proponents want me to do something (vote? switch? not really sure), but don't equip me with the ability to do it smartly. Instead I get derided by people who judge me for not being smart enough, or valuing my time enough (wtf?) to switch to IPv6. Like I'm somehow holding back progress.

I'm not really sure what this means. Everyone values their time differently, I'm certainly not going to judge anyone for that. If IPv6 doesn't solve any problems for you, then great. Don't try and pretend that it's not helping loads of other people solve their problems though.