None of that exposition was in your original post which was all windows users should disable ipv6 because “it causes issues.”
And it may be irrefutable that in your specific case, or cases, the prudent course of action was to disable ipv6, declare victory and move on to more important issues.
Notwithstanding the subsequent “milking” and goal shifting, “windows users should disable ipv6” because I ran into issues is no more valid than the argument that windows users should enable ipv6 because I have not experienced any issues.
I made the statement that Ipv6 causes issues. It does. My retort was it’s the latest in a long line of issues.
Microsoft says “it doesn’t” isn’t a really good defense of your point.
NAT is a nightmare. It has been for 20+ years now. It’s old news. It breaks end to end connectivity. Lets use IPv6.
That wasn’t so hard was it?
NAT also causes problems with multiple clients tunnelling to the same server due to the NAT traversal work-around, it also causes issues with session recovery due to the state saved in the NAT session table on the NAT device, and it causes problems with routing between two RFC1918 private networks. Because there’s no guarantee that the addresses on both sides won’t be the same. In fact, there’s a fucking good chance the same subnets will be on both sides of the router. “Solution”? Even more NAT! Oh and DNS (and other protocol) fixups on the firewall to try and make it work. Fuck that. It also breaks UDP.
It’s a hack that needs to die, and should never have been born.
And all this for a solution that won’t scale anyway, due to the increasing number of connections between devices, vs. the limited number of port mappings a NAT router can create sessions with.
I wouldn’t be surprised considering the, ahem, “quality” of some of the hardware/firmware engineering and product management and lack of incentives for any after sale maintenance.
Generally, a person deploying networking equipment will not have enough time, experience, ability, or tools to debug “stuff” like this on their own. And hardware will be a heavily NDAd mystery impenetrable to any kind of opensource firmware which would allow motivated companies and/or individuals to fix “stuff” like that.
Then again I think both ipv6 and ipv4 nat generally work just fine for a normie user who typically doesn’t know what they are, and uses internet from their phone, TV, and v4 only lightbulbs through ISP provided/managed wifi nat gateway.
I don’t think there’s any benefit going out of your way to enable ipv6 on your home/soho/smb network unless you’re a network enthusiast, it doesn’t make anything simpler or easier.
If you manage networks for hotels, events, 500+ employee companies, ISPs, and can afford to buy new hardware and not liquidated 2004 era swiches, then yes, go setup v6. It’ll make your network planning easier, but keep asking about ipv6 support from sales reps, that way you can return hw more easily when it turns out it doesn’t work well or only works partially with ipv6.
There is nothing in what I posted or the linked guidance from Microsoft that suggests: "Microsoft says [ipv6] doesn't [cause issues]."
It is however an advisory against the prophylactic disabling of ipv6. Your original post "If you are running windows, you are currently better of disabling [ipv6]. It currently causes issues[,]" happens to be exactly the position advised against. Pointing that out informs the discussion.
You are now trying to rahab your original post into only "ipv6 causes issues." Which is understandable: your original advice is FUD and the retreat "ipv6 causes issues" is pablum so generic it is as irrefutable as it is useless. There is no aspect of networking, computing or complex things in general that is free from “issues.” But you surely would not advise to disable all of the networking stack “because it has issues”?
Had you written: "If you are running windows, you are currently better off disabling [ipv6] [because I have been troubleshooting a 20Gb bond that was only able to push 3Gb until we disabled IPv6]," then it would have been apparent from the beginning "all windows users should disable" is not a sound generalization.
But, as a conciliatory appeal to your revisionist impulse and an acknowledgment that labeling it "FUD" goaded you on, feel free to indulge in the fiction of applying ^FUD^bad advice to this comment and my original if that salves.