Still, for a company like discord, not even using host names to allow DNS64 is really sad.
Another would be that government customers need to have IPv6-enabled sites. This could get a lot of companies to add IPv6 hosting.
My understanding is they largely do. It's the ISPs that have enough IPv4 addresses that don't feel a need to upgrade, and the website operators who $3/server/month for an IPv4 address is a rounding error.
128 is no different to 33 bits, or 32 bits plus extension header in that regard.
Perhaps you meant to suggest that they should own 1.1.1.1::/64 or 1.1.1.1/128 (or 1:1:1:1::/64)?
Even if it's the latter case, both the actual ::ffff:1.2.3.4 (or it's predecessor ::1.2.3.4) have the problem that some middle box receives a packet for 1.1.1.1::abcd:1234, doesn't understand the header the abcd:1234 portion is encoded in, throws it away, and the router at 1.1.1.1 receives a packet which is destined for some unknown device behind the router with no info for how to get the packet to that device.
The only other way to get them to invest in alternatives to IPv4 before IPv4 stopped meeting their business needs would have been via regulation.
But the limitations of v4 and of existing v4 devices limit the ways that can work. Reinventing stuff and calling it "4.1" won't change that. You'll still face all of the same limitations.
> They'd focus on getting everyone onto the v6 protocol first, then open up the new addresses for use. That's the transition period that never happened.
That's basically the transition period that _is_ happening, except we aren't delaying the "open up the new addresses" stage -- the new addresses are usable straight away for anything you've migrated.