It's important to recognize snark and sarcasm for better or worse.
I think GP is referring to the idea that just because ipv6 is capable to provide universal connectivity from a technical sense, that does not translate to the techopolies implementing it in its rawest form. They have "interests".
They are quite happy being a dependent node between two individuals/devices talking to each other directly on the network in many aspects. The "Who, ???, When, Where, ???" are very important to their ability to monetize you and keep their business going. No good/evil duality here its just business and the capitalist way in the basic form. Why would they want you to send messages directly to another individual/device when you can just as aptly use their "cloud/network" service instead? Why buy a VPS from AWS or Digitalocean when you can just host the same services from your phone or a spare computer?
ipv6 can in some sense threaten the for-mentioned dependency, given no restriction. So expect even if these massive operators implement ipv6 end-to-end, probably as a cost/complexity saving measure, that "security", "convenience", "reliability" measures are put in place so that you are not permitted to make direct connections across ipv6 unchecked or at best some technical upsell, or just not possible at all.
The sad story being that while ipv4 and NAT/CGNAT were intended as a technical stop-gap to ipv4 exhaustion and security, waiting for ipv6, it effectively moats users into network centric power hierarchies where the ISPs, hardware vendors, OS vendors get to dictate the level of access, which are useful from a business aspect.
Remember ipv4 is now "scarce". Scarcity produces economies, which produce commodities, which produce futures/speculation, which produce business strategy. ipv6 promotes universal abundance and connectivity which is terrible for business on the strategic front. No wonder why ipv6 is going nowhere so fast.
I think GP is referring to the idea that just because ipv6 is capable to provide universal connectivity from a technical sense, that does not translate to the techopolies implementing it in its rawest form. They have "interests".
They are quite happy being a dependent node between two individuals/devices talking to each other directly on the network in many aspects. The "Who, ???, When, Where, ???" are very important to their ability to monetize you and keep their business going. No good/evil duality here its just business and the capitalist way in the basic form. Why would they want you to send messages directly to another individual/device when you can just as aptly use their "cloud/network" service instead? Why buy a VPS from AWS or Digitalocean when you can just host the same services from your phone or a spare computer?
ipv6 can in some sense threaten the for-mentioned dependency, given no restriction. So expect even if these massive operators implement ipv6 end-to-end, probably as a cost/complexity saving measure, that "security", "convenience", "reliability" measures are put in place so that you are not permitted to make direct connections across ipv6 unchecked or at best some technical upsell, or just not possible at all.
The sad story being that while ipv4 and NAT/CGNAT were intended as a technical stop-gap to ipv4 exhaustion and security, waiting for ipv6, it effectively moats users into network centric power hierarchies where the ISPs, hardware vendors, OS vendors get to dictate the level of access, which are useful from a business aspect.
Remember ipv4 is now "scarce". Scarcity produces economies, which produce commodities, which produce futures/speculation, which produce business strategy. ipv6 promotes universal abundance and connectivity which is terrible for business on the strategic front. No wonder why ipv6 is going nowhere so fast.