In a way, you disabling it now is the reason why others are disabling it later. A lot of IPv6 deployment issues are precisely caused by middleboxes/clients disabling or misconfiguring it.
You quickly assuming IPv6 is a "shitty technology" means that you are part of the problem. Congratulations, you just proved my point.
>the one we're using now
The one we are using now is held by a bandaid. It's insane that, for me to connect to other computer, I need a middleman (STUN or other coordination services) to help me with it.
It's not insane, it's the default and correct assumption. I certainly don't want random computers connecting to mine just because they want to.
STUN is a shitty solution to this problem, but IPv6 doesn't provide any solution at all, so a shitty solution wins here. Sorry.
1. Reject the IPv6 solution
2. Say IPv6 doesn't have a solution
3. ???
4. Profit
Sigh.
Every company I've ever worked for has completely disabled IPv6 on the corporate network. My own ISP still doesn't offer it. Disabling it is often the quickest fix for a variety of networking issues.
At some point we must admit failure. There is no conspiracy to limit IPv6 adoption. If the technology was truly useful, you'd see far more in our profession advocate for it.