Reply to post:

Good luck standardising exclusively on something that almost every home ISP on the planet cannot yet support.

Sure, that's not an excuse. But there's no point making a standard that - as a percentage of Internet users - most people cannot use, wouldn't buy, or couldn't care about.

I blame the rubbish about "IPv6 must use an address per device on your network", when you really DON'T care about internal networks of people past the single address they use to the connect via their NAT router. IPv6 and NAT co-operate 100%, but some idiots pulled that out of the bag, scared people, and now nobody will touch it without thinking they have to renumber every device on their network, that they all have to support IPv6 (which isn't going to happen for everything for a long time yet), and that everything you do must be rejigged for IPv6.

Rather than just getting an IPv6 address, slapping that into your gateway device, and done.

IPv6 is in DOCSIS, it's in the 4G standards, it works for DNS, email, all sorts. Datacentre and server hosts all support it. It's in every major OS since XP. But it's rarely used because - well, I can name precisely on ISP, who are very expensive and technical, who actually support and advertise IPv6.

BT don't on their network.

Virgin Media don't on their network.

Bye-bye 99% of users who would use those services, whether they know it or not.

So you have to put IPv4 compatibility in anyway, which just pushes adoption dates even further back.

P.S. The Reg - remember our rule? You can do an IPv6 story when you publish an AAAA record, even on a test website. If I've got them on my website, you should have them on yours if you're going to mock people for not using it.