I imagine if you only have IPv6 then some parts of the internet will stop working, and customers will then blame the ISP. I can see why ISPs keep the status quo when it probably costs them very little to do so.
Eh, in Germany most ISPs will only give you DSLite for new contracts - Dual Stack Lite where you only get a NATed private IPv4 address but full IPv6 connectivity.
My contract is from 2014, no IPv6 at all, but also a real IP and not behind a CGNAT. Kabel Deutschland/Vodafone business account (which is available for everyone and doesn’t mention anything about NAT)
Nah. My home internet is originally Dual-Stack lite IPv6 mainly with IPv4 being tunneled over an Enterprise-like NAS (so my outgoing IPv4 connections share the address with other users).
I just switched to full dual stack (by leasing a static IPv4 address from my provider) to be able to handle incoming connections for my VPN. As long as you don't want to host anything on IPv4, dual stack lite is fine.
I think both Sprint and T-Mobile have been assigning handing out IPv6 to end devices for a couple of years now. A much smaller NAT64 pool of IPv4 addresses is used for customers trying to reach v4 resources. Of course this would break self hosted things on v4 but that's still a better state than what CGNAT from various carriers is giving people at home (i.e. broken inbound v4 and no v6 at all).
There will never be an ipv6 only internet while there is an ipv4 only internet. ISPs will just CGNAT 10,000 users through one ipv4 address. An ipv4 address will be something like a post code where everyone in the same city/area gets the same address.
