There is one big problem I see with IPv6 deployment: Hosting providers don't get it.<p>Yes, you can increasingly get IPv6 connectivity, but it's common that you get a single /64, or even just a single address. Now, I want to run a bunch of virtual machines on my server, with a virtual network or two between them ... and already, I have to use ugly hacks to get by instead of just assigning addresses using the standard way of doing things with IPv6. In the best case, I just have to ask for more address space, but even that is completely pointless overhead that only works as an incentive to use fragile network constructs instead of just assigning addresses where they are needed.<p>People seem to have internalized that addresses are scarce and therefore precious and therefore have to be conserved at all cost - they don't even notice that that was the problem of IPv4 (or at least the most important problem of IPv4) that IPv6 was supposed to solve, and which it indeed does solve very well, and that their efforts at conserving IPv6 address space cause more harm than they help.<p>Lots of hosters around here are RIPE members who have their standard /32 allocation (which they could extend to /29 without any further documentation required), so if they chose to assign /56 networks to customers, they would have space for about 16 million customers before they would need to request more address space from RIPE, and for 128 million before they need to justify any further need. But apparently they consider it better use of that address space to just leave it mostly unused and make it difficult for their customers to use IPv6, not even noticing that there is a reason why RIPE assigned them a /32 ...