Re: Religion on both sides
There are religious 'keep V4'ers just as there are religious v6ers
Very true. Regardless of what anyone thinks, IPv4 is now in the "the only debate is how long" phase of dying. NAT is a right PITA for many reasons, and CG NAT even more so. Some parts of the world no longer have enough IPv4 addresses to allow individual users to have a single IP per subscription - hence many people have to sit behind CG NAT.
Even if CG NAT didn't break anything (which is does), it's expensive - so a cost to carriers which ultimately filters through to the users.
Unfortunately most CPE makers are producing crap products
I'll single out the complete pile of manure shipped by Vodafone as the epitome of that. It's got a user interface that seems to be aimed at 2 year olds, that just doesn't do some simple things, makes other basics way too complicated - and worst of all if you ever have the misfortune to try and connect to anything while the DSL line is down then it'll hijack all your connections, cause a flurry of security warnings, and generally throw a pile of manure in your browser cache.
I partly agree with Voland's right hand above where he says The problem is that the v6 fanatics insist that there is nothing wrong with the crazy .... Watching the threads in the IPv6 ops mailing list, it's clear that there are some entrenched positions - and definitely some "what works for us is X, Y doesn't work for us, therefore no-one should be able to do Y" approaches. I couldn't possibly suggest a link between that and the fact that Android does not support DHCPv6.
Routing information is another area where (from my viewpoint of operating small networks) there is a problem. The argument FOR Router Advertisements is that the router guys are a different team to the DHCP guys (which they probably are in very big networks who are disproportionately involved) - hence allowing the router guys to configure device routing is the right way as it means they don't have to co-ordinate with the Server & DHCP guys. Dunno about you, but I can't think of a situation where the network guys can alter the addressing scheme without co-ordinating with the Server & DHCP guys (or vice-versa) so that's a non-argument. But what it does do is push routing decisions to end devices - so instead of being able to put your routing rules in one (controlled) place, you have to use a currently non-existent protocol to push that down to all your clients and hope that they all co-operate !