"IPv6 support is pretty much standard in routers, applications, libraries, etc. these days, so we're not "going to forklift a whole new collection of libraries and programs onto everyone's computer" - all these libraries have been quietly ported over the last decade or so..."
So what? DJB's linked criticism correctly predicted that would happen, and also correctly predicted that would not cause any significant uptake in ipv6.
The issue is that 98% of the ISPs customers will be happier with CG-NAT than with an ipv6 address, so the ISPs are going to spend money on the former and not the latter. This will be true as long as a majority of their customers connect to even one server without deployed ipv6.
The vast majority of people connected to the internet consider themselves a client, not a peer. CG-NAT is better for you than ipv6 if you are a client that wants to talk to even a single ipv4-only server.
CG NAT breaks console multi player for most games (those without dedicated hosting) it will break voip systems such as skype and sip. it will break in game voice comms.
Guess what has no IPv6 support? Xbox, PS3, and Skype.
I will point out, though, that Dual Stack Lite may end up being cheaper for ISPs than NAT444 because CGNs are relatively expensive and native IPv6 traffic (including Google and Netflix) doesn't have to go through a CGN.
I actually have none of these; ... I bet all of these will work over CG-NAT.
Yes. Let's gamble the indefinite future health of the internet on what works for you, a single point of reference, right now, at the very beginning of the IPv4 shortage, without a single thought spared for use-cases not concerning you.
That sounds like a very good and not at all short-sighted strategy.
That's not what I intended; I don't know what the issues are with any of these w.r.t. CG-NAT, since I don't have or use any of them. It was a request for clarification (you know the part of my quote you turned into ellipses).
I do know that every place I have been to the PS3/Xbox has been behind local NAT, so I would be surprised if CG-NAT broke these; my understanding also is that both of them have a central service for game-discovery which means there is no reason they couldn't implement NAT traversal there.
I also never said that CG-NAT wasn't more short-sighted than ipv6; rather that the ISPs have no motivation to deploy ipv6 and much motivation to deploy CG-NAT.
So what? DJB's linked criticism correctly predicted that would happen, and also correctly predicted that would not cause any significant uptake in ipv6.
The issue is that 98% of the ISPs customers will be happier with CG-NAT than with an ipv6 address, so the ISPs are going to spend money on the former and not the latter. This will be true as long as a majority of their customers connect to even one server without deployed ipv6.
The vast majority of people connected to the internet consider themselves a client, not a peer. CG-NAT is better for you than ipv6 if you are a client that wants to talk to even a single ipv4-only server.