I read it there are no real benefits to the end users but apparently there are benefits to the Telecom operators.
From what I read, China is pushing for ipv6 in the past few years to prepare for 5G and IoT.
Maybe ipv6 will take off after 2025 in Singapore.
There are many benefits of IPv6, both for the providers and the users... HOWEVER, for an incumbent provider that already has enough IPv4 to support their customer base there is a reason to stifle IPv6 adoption as the restricted availability of IPv4 these days makes it harder and more expensive for any new providers to enter the market.
Any new or expanding providers will be forced to implement carrier grade nat (CGN) which is expensive to implement and incurs a performance hit, especially once you have regulatory requirements like having to log every connection in order to identify customers actions.
IPv6 is taking off in many countries, for instance around 70% of users in india have IPv6:
https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6
Less developed and more populous countries are significantly more affected by the flaws of ipv4, and that's why you see a big push for ipv6 in china, india etc.
Big services like Google, Office365, Facebook etc are all available over IPv6 now.
All else being equal, IPv6 is faster - simplified packet header, no need to recalculate the checksum on every router, no need for NAT and its associated overheads etc. How much of a difference depends, on M1 right now my pings to google are around 4ms over ipv4 and 3ms over ipv6, microsoft, facebook etc are similar with ipv6 always being slightly faster. For users forced to use CGN the difference can be much bigger, especially if the CGN gateway is overloaded.
CGN causes other problems, like some other user getting the shared address blacklisted. When forced to use providers with CGN it's not uncommon to be constantly facing captcha requirements from google, cloudflare and other sites.
The Internet was designed on the assumption that every host has a unique address, and a lot of older protocols were designed that way. NAT breaks this assumption, and you end up having inferior workarounds:
- VOIP - The way VOIP protocols like SIP and H.323 were designed is you have a server to negotiate the call, which then sets up streaming directly between the endpoint devices. With NAT this isnt possible, so the voice traffic gets routed through a third party server too - increasing latency and jitter.
- Gaming - The same applies, direct connections between gamers instead of via a third party server has lower latency... Microsoft designed the xbox one to support ipv6 partly for this reason.
Latency of a third party server can be an even bigger problem if the other peers are local to you (same country, even same isp) and the server is not (providers of such services will usually choose not to locate local servers in every country, and countries with less users are more likely to lose out here).
NAT also encourages devices to be built to depend on third party services, such as cctv cameras that use cloud services. You can control your own firewall and/or vpn and restrict inbound access to your devices, but you have no control whatsoever over a third party cloud service. These services might be horribly insecure, or might get shut down without notice.
Clearer firewall rules - addresses are the same both sides of the firewall, so your rules are simpler and easier to understand.
Background noise - ipv4 addresses are very limited, so its common for malware to scan the entire address space. This junk will constantly be hitting any box with an unfiltered connection, wasting resources. Such scanning does not occur over ipv6 because the address space is so large it wouldn't be practical to do so.
You may not be forced to use CGN right now, but spare a thought for the millions who have no choice. A lack of widespread ipv6 adoption is hurting the millions of people who have no choice.
