National adoption rates of IPv6 is often more determined by historical IPv4 allocations and decisions of a number of sysadmins in the 100s at consumer facing ISPs, not a factor of the population's size
Of course not. I mentioned population to point at how big a market Turkey is, which makes the whole "just switch to IPv6" more problematic than it seems. We just can't do it at once, so IPv4 is going to be around for the foreseeable future. I mean, unless we create a service that is IPv6 only to create public pressure.
Like, what if TikTok was IPv6 only? We would have 100% IPv6 by now.
Let's remember who the audience for this article is. It is not for consumers or application developers.
It's for network operators (and equipment vendors). Telling network operators "Let's just switch to V6" is not in anyway problematic. If every network operator decided to make it a priority we could have 90% of internet customers on v6 enable networks within 2 years. Easily.
Of course SaaS/Content providers need to run dual stack for a while. But ISPs need to stop dragging their damn feet and deploy v6.
> But ISPs need to stop dragging their damn feet...
But, why would they if dragging their feet makes them a lot of money? Why would they bother unless there's massive demand from the public for full IPv6 adoption?
I mean even ISPs with IPv6 support don't care about the IPv6 experience of their customers. AT&T, for example, doesn't give more than a /64 address space to home users, which only supports one subnet. If you have, say, a guest network and a trusted network, you can't have separate inbound routing/firewall rules as both would have the same prefix.
So, I disagree that convincing network operators is the right way to go about it. We need to convince the public about the benefits of IPv6.