I stand by my prediction...
> Seriously, the moment Zuckerberg and Co decide to go IPv6 only, IPv6 will take off faster than a class M rocket engine attached to a bog roll.
>The one thing that will push everyone to IPv6 will be when some of the big sites (YouTube, Facebook) go IPv6-only.
These big sites will never go IPV6 *only* in our lifetime. They have no reason to.
> And will the PS3/Xbox360/Wii support IPv6? Of course! That's what FW updates are for!
Won't happen. What possible business case is there for MS/Sony/Nintendo to create a support nightmare when everything is working fine today and will continue to tomorrow. Again these companies have all the IPV4 they need "forever".
No, some multiplayer games won't play well with NAT. They will be fixed (to use a 3rd party server - oh look another means of controlling the consumer. EA love turning their severs off to push everyone onto this years roll of their top-earning cash cow). A lot of multiplayer games do work with NAT, I've run several xboxes behind a local NAT and it's just fine most of the time.
> And of course, the smaller ISPs won't be able to compete, thus they'll get squeezed out of business, leaving the ones that remain free to rip us off with crap service.
I can't see the big ISPs crying about that...
> Non-browser apps? Most of 'em support IPv6 as well!
Disagree. There are a huge number of legacy application that don't. They won't be fixed. They will (and do) work with NAT. They don't work IPV6 only.
> I can't have *decent* IM chat engine without a 3rd party involved
Boo hoo say the telcos!
> I'd love to run my own website at home.
> I can't setup my own Teamspeak server,
So pay a few $ extra for a premium service with an IPV4 address. Kerching!
> Yep, I can see a carrier-NATed Internet being a happy place!
It won't be. The internet will be come cable TV 2.0. A lot of big money wants exactly that.
In the end, I'd love IPV6 to take off - but I fear that it won't and we'll end up in a world of IPV4 NAT pain.