Well, tbh dual-stack is enabled in 70% of France's customers for example.
If you start with a solid base (having a fixed IPv6 /56 delegation for example), or at least a dynamic allocation with IPv6-PD, then you'll see that it's way easier than IPv4 in the long end
Advocates often drag out the [large number]% of IPv6 in some case or another.
It is only thanks to "happy eyeball" algorithms in the browser which prefer v4 when v6 is broken or non-performant that mitigate end user complaints to the point that people can just kind of turn it on in some state of broken and forget about it.
> It is only thanks to "happy eyeball" algorithms in the browser which prefer v4 when v6 is broken or non-performant that mitigate end user complaints to the point that people can just kind of turn it on in some state of broken and forget about it.
There are entire ISPs that are IPv6-only at the CPE and have to deal with brain-dead software that can't handle it and so have to spend enormous amounts on CG-NAT:
That specific article is about streaming, which absolutely provides a better experience over v4. As much as we like to pretend that the presence of v6 implies a "dual stack" environment, the reality is that at the transport layer v6 is a lot of hasty hacks to make a vocal minority happy.
You still can't talk to Hurricane Electric from Cogent over v6. Lots of v6 links are still tunnels. v6 PMTU Discovery was a massive mistake that introduces latency.
Yeah, pfsense apparently just solved this partly (except for aliases) [1], same with OPNsense [2], where there is still an open issue [3]. There are some declined PRs that are not "high priority" [4]. Note that I have just looked these issues up - I don't have insight into any of these. This is not meant as ranting.
If you start with a solid base (having a fixed IPv6 /56 delegation for example), or at least a dynamic allocation with IPv6-PD, then you'll see that it's way easier than IPv4 in the long end