The site becomes reachable to IPv6-only hosts.

Some servers can work reliably with only IPv6, for instance, until you need to contact IPv4-only servers.

I would like my mail server to be IPv6-only, but that's not currently possible, for instance.

I wonder how many customers can realistically hide behind a single IPv4 (CGNAT), given that there are 65535 TCP/UDP ports.

> I wonder how many customers can realistically hide behind a single IPv4 (CGNAT), given that there are 65535 TCP/UDP ports.

In theory, one IPv4 address can maintain 65535 connections with every HTTPS server (TCP port 443) on the Internet simultaneously. The main cause of port depletion would be when lots of users connect to the same server.

A reasonable number is 1000 users with 64 ports each, but you could probably squeeze in another 10X.

Ah, right, the mapping can be per server IP, thanks for pointing this out.

If Facebook started throwing persistent connections left and right, it imagine it could cause a problem, but short of that, it should be fine.

In what way would using ipv6 enhance your experience using the sites listed on the site?

None, I also think the site is stupid.

Obviously, anyone already using this site can already afford IPv4

One less reason to take up gardening? /s