From our point as an MSP no customer has a requirement that they want to be able to be reached via IPV6 so it’s still cheaper to buy up IPV4 address space and do a lot of nat than to convert all our services to function properly with IPV6. 

Sure one could argue that they should have been made that way from the beginning but without customer demand why would we spend the money? 



On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 8:48 AM Bryan Fields <Bryan@bryanfields.net> wrote:

On 10/22/21 11:13 AM, Job Snijders via NANOG wrote:
> Another aspect that flabbergasts me anno 2021 is how there *still* are
> BGP peering disputes between (more than two) major global internet service
> providers in which IPv6 is 'held hostage' as part of slow commercial
> negotiations. Surely end-to-end IPv6 connectivity should be a priority?

Even the DNS root servers are not 100% reachable via IPv6.  I would think IANA
would have some standard about reachability for root operators.

FWIW, I just was able to change my home office internet (I reside in the most
densely populated county of Florida).  The new provider sold me a dual stack
connection, however when they came to deliver it, there was no IPv6 as
promised.  After spending almost a week playing phone tag, I finally got some
one with clue.  I was told they have no support if IPv6 and no plans to ever
support IPv6 as there is no way to monetize it.

This leaves me in the same position as my prior circuit via the local cable
co. (no plans to offer IPv6) but at least it's faster than the 2 meg up cable
service.

Until IPv6 becomes provides a way to make money for the ISP, I don't see it
being offered outside of the datacenter.

87% of mobiles in the usa are ipv6

https://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/

--
Bryan Fields

727-409-1194 - Voice
http://bryanfields.net