> How many random people do you think will answer "yes" if you ask them if they 1) know what IPv6 is, and 2) if they want it?

you can ask the same question about IPv4 and get same answers.

Well, you can also ask general public whether they prefer SAE or metric fasteners, or mix thereof, in their car, and get the same blank stare in return.

But ask auto-mechanics, and hoo boy, will there be opinions.

Sure, but the argument was that there is a demand from the general public/customers, and that's clearly not the case.

Yes, exactly. People don't care if they use IP or IPX or whatnot; as long as it works. And IPv4 does work, so people don't care.

> And IPv4 does work, so people don't care

I think this elides the point really.

People don't know when an issue is because of ipv4, for a good example: network issues in online video games are often caused by being unable to NAT punch, lag can also be because connection information is relayed by some far away STUN server. Same with in-game voice chat.

Usually you need to set port forwards to make games work properly.

In the event of GCNAT a customer has no possible recourse.

But nobody understands the issue is largely because of IPv4, they just assume that's how it is, and assume the same issue would exist with IPv6

Games, audio/video calls, screen sharing - any peer-to-peer traffic is a royal pain in the back with NAT and CGNAT especially.

Larger providers (zoom, apple/facetime, twitch, ...) just set up relay servers and avoid p2p altogether - which cost money, increase latency/jitter, and decrease privacy. You can argue all of that are hidden costs of sticking to IPv4 for longer than we should have.