I’m not a v6 evangelist. I don’t work in networking, nor do I know enough about it to really want to evangelise for v6. Surely “humanity hasn’t prioritised doing something, therefore the ‘something’ is inherently flawed” is an argument that conjures enough contemporary exceptions that you can see how deeply and utterly flawed it is?

IPv6 was supposed to solve problems and make life easier, not more complicated.

If your argument for adopting new technology is basically "you must eat your vegetables" then your technology has failed.

My experience building products for customers is that they're a few percent novel or exciting and >90% eating veggies.

I downvoted you because this article has nothing to do with IPv6 technology. It has to do with a large ISP being a dick and refusing to act mature and, you know, do their goddamned job and peer with other ISPs.

The problem will solve itself. CGNAT will only take us so far until that no longer scales to where the ISPs want to pay for it.

That said, IPv6 is a horrible implementation.

Cgnat can scale forever. There are isps with dozens or even hundreds of millions of clients using cgnat with no issues.

As video conferencing and streaming needs increase, I'm not so sure about that. Demand for low latency experiences is only growing.

TCP/IP has 48 bits for addressing, this is more than enough for the world. There are inefficiencies currently with allocating these bits, but they're easier to solve than adopting IPv6.

It has 32 addressing bits, and even if it did have 48 that wouldn't be enough. Inefficient allocation isn't the problem; there's just not enough address space for the Internet at the scale it's reached.

v6 is much easier (and cheaper) to deal with than layers and layers of NAT everywhere.