[noipv6]

okay - how about a few other angles?

https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/ - per-country, and within a country, per-asn eyeball statistics, collected from online ads - not just mobile!

https://www.facebook.com/ipv6/?tab=ipv6_country - per-country, albeit with a mobile-heavier bias (as you hint)

https://www.akamai.com/internet-station/cyber-attacks/state-... - collected from their content delivery network - tends to show lower adoption than the other metrics

i would point out that "all mobile phones have IPv6" isn't true globally, but it is the reality in some countries, yes.

[tjoff]

Neat, very different results. But still looking at it from the wrong direction?

That is, ipv6 for clients. But I'm more interested in servers, because that is what would affect me if I don't have IPv4. Such as the experiences described by OP in this thread.

[noipv6]

ipv6-only web sites are borderline nonexistant, because no one who needs to maintain a profit dares to cut off a revenue stream from legacy ip only users (yet).

the most exhaustive list thus far is https://sites.ip-update.net/ afaik

[tjoff]

I'm not asking for ipv6-only, but ipv4-only.

Those are the ones blocking adoption for me, as an end user.

[keiyakins]

How are they blocking? You're just behind a NAT64, which is no worse than NAT44, with the bonus of having actual connectivity on the IPv6 side.

[noipv6]

derp yes

https://whynoipv6.com/

[MrRadar]

Ugh, Centurylink. Their networks, both DSL and Fiber, support IPv6 but you need to go into the router config and explicitly enable it which is why they show up as 0.5% IPv6 supported in that first link despite every other top-10 US ISP having at least 50%. I've enabled v6 on my home connections with them on both DSL and fiber and I've had absolutely no problems with it. I wish they would enable it by default with their consumer network equipment.