Well I'm hoping it doesn't fail
>> For good, technical reasons!
Most of those "good reasons" are (IMO) actually good arguments FOR IPv6. Much of what is written is simply drivel written by someone who has never had to deal with the problems caused by s**t like NAT. IMNSHO, if you think NAT is a good idea, you are completely unqualified to talk about networking.
Part of the problem getting IPv6 off the ground is that some f**kwit invented NAT and made people believe the problem was "solved". We'd be far better off now if the effort that's gone into sorting out the s**t caused by NAT has been invested in fixing the real problem instead of new artificial problems.
If you think NAT is easy to deal with (just use STUN I hear being uttered), try it with a Zyxel router and see how well it doesn't work ! uPnP isn't an answer unless you think having a service designed to allow an untrusted bit of software to completely bypass your security is a good thing.
True there are going to be some adjustments needed, and issues to work out. The subject of this article is **NOT** one of them - it's simply an old problem using the new protocol and the tools haven't caught up *YET*. For example, our helpdesk aren't looking forward to diagnosing connection problems with users who struggle to : "type ping 192.168.1.1 and press the return key" even when you spell it out keypress by keypress.
PS - yes I do think some aspects of IPv6 are sub optimal, but that is just detail - there's nothing fundamentally wrong.