Since most consumers don't care, and CG-NAT bandaids the problem I don't see how the market will be motivated to spend the time/money to bring us IPv6. We're probably going to be stuck with shitty bandaid solutions for a while
For your own infrastructure, re-using the same addresses over and over, as in a CG-NAT scheme, makes it far easier for mistakes to happen and far harder to diagnose them. Your network becomes a fragile component that your own network engineers are frightened to touch, hurting your ability to compete as a network provider.
What's 10.20.30.40? Your own notes show you use 10.20.30.40 in Sector A of the country for a Cisco router but you also named a different device, a microwave transceiver in Sector B of the country 10.20.30.40 with the NAT supposedly separating the two. So packets supposedly "from" 10.20.30.40 could be the Cisco router playing up again, but they could be that microwave transceiver misbehaving, or they could be CPE leaking a customer's internal addresses into your CG-NAT network. If you try to "solve" this over the network you might end up talking to a "different" 10.20.30.40 than the one causing problems and make things worse.
Once you realise you want IPv6 internally, it's not a huge leap to realise that you might as well at least _offer_ this to customers too.
But until all web sites and services have migrated to IPv6, each smartphone still needs an IPv4 address, right? How does introducing IPv6 internally solve the problem you described, if a significant portion of traffic is still using IPv4?
[0] https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/deploy360/2014/cas...
For those smartphones, the other half of the equation is 464XLAT adaptors at the edge of your network. So no, the smartphones don't get given IPv4 addresses at all.
What happens there is split into two scenarios
1. User goes to Facebook. Facebook has IPv6, everything just works, no extra expense
2. User goes to My Cat Blog. My Cat Blog is IPv4-only but two layers of NAT64 make it work anyway [ Edited: My previous explanation here was just wrong. Sorry. Go read up on 464XLAT if you care, the phone needs to know what's going on here, so this is easier to deliver for a phone network than to home computers... ]
Case 2 isn't much better than CG-NAT for IPv4 services - your smartphone still doesn't have a "real" IPv4 address. BUT the ISP only needs to spend on it in proportion to continued use of IPv4. As sites big or small offer IPv6, their users automatically stop relying on 464XLAT for those sites and cut the costs of the equipment, whereas people who choose CG-NAT are stuck paying for that forever.
It's probably uncommon, but I wonder what happens if a T-mobile customer has an older 3G-capable device that doesn't support CLAT.
I'm glad other people are having more luck with them.
Very slow internet at my AirBnBs, generally very poor WiFi availability and speeds in public, the co-working space I’m in (that is otherwise excellent) is a similar speed to my home connection in London.
Above all, latency makes some websites considerably less pleasant to use, and SSH to most places is painful. I know that’s not something the local market can necessarily fix though.
This is not visa advice.
I'm one of the few lucky ones with FTTP which gets me close to 100mbit speeds. But as soon as I have to connect to a server outside of Oz I am pretty much back to (high) ADSL speeds. Latency to the US and Singapore (the two closest international backbones) is around 150-200ms. It's around double that for Europe. At peak times those backbones get very congested.
Funnily the only country I've been to that has faster and more consistent 4g was Japan.
Whirlpool still exists also.
It seems that there has been a bit more adoption of it since I last checked which must have been a while ago, I'm surprised to see Telstra on the list!