If "every significant router on the market" supported IPv6 five years ago,
and if cash fell from the sky ...
to folk actually running real networks, 'support' means *parity* with ipv4, i.e. fast path at decent rates, management and monitoring, no licensing extortion, ...
we don't have that today!
We need more of the spirit of the old days of networking when people building UUCP, and Fidonet and IP networks did less complaining about "vendors" and made things work as best they could. Eventually, the vendors caught on and jumped on the bandwagon. The fact is that lack of fastpath support doesn't matter until IPv6 traffic levels get high enough to need the fastpath. Today we need to get more complete IPv6 coverage. And if management and monitoring work fine on IPv4 and networks are dual-stacked, why change? Do you have an actual example of a vendor, today, charging a higher license fee for IPv6 support?
the *additional* cost and effort to the isp of fullly deploying dual-stack is still non-trivial. this is mightily off-pissing.
Nobody promised you a free lunch. In any case, the investment required to turn up IPv6 support is a lot less than the cost of carrier grade NAT. And the running costs of IPv6 are also lower, --Michael Dillon