[zkms]

> Nobody is incentivized to actually deploy servers to IPv6 while there exist zero IPv6-only clients.

Facebook is a counterexample.

> Over the past few years, Facebook has been transitioning its data center infrastructure from IPv4 to IPv6. We began by dual-stacking our internal network — adding IPv6 to all IPv4 infrastructure — and decided that all new data center clusters would be brought online as IPv6-only. We then worked on moving all applications and services running in our data centers to use and support IPv6. Today, 99 percent of our internal traffic is IPv6 and half of our clusters are IPv6-only. We anticipate moving our entire fleet to IPv6 and retiring the remaining IPv4 clusters over the next few years.

https://code.facebook.com/posts/635645183305089/legacy-suppo...

[stouset]

They might have actually done it, but my point is that the incentives for companies to do so generally aren't there. And as long as there exist some large sites that believe the costs to adopting IPv6 exceed the benefits, ISPs will continue to give IPv4 addresses to their clients.

[Symbiote]

My phone's IP is in the private 10 range. A request to Facebook must go through the provider's expensive NAT router.

If they assigned my phone an IPV6 address in addition, that traffic could go directly to Facebook through cheaper switches, which is faster for me, and cheaper for them.