"parts of the web are going IPv6-only", "Certain web servers have been going IPv6-only of late" - Really? Which parts of the web? Why would anyone configure their servers that way?
Inside a company, once you're out of RFC 1918 space, you'll end up here sooner or later. It's also a convenient forcing function to get people like me to stop being lazy and actually investigate dumb things like this.
Some budget hosting providers offer IPv6-only hosting for a lower price, since IPv4 addresses are getting harder to acquire en masse (and thus are more expensive).
3€ year, not month. I can accept being ripped off at that price. I think I found those guys on that same page you just linked, actually. But anyway, most stuff on https://lowendbox.com/ is quite more expensive than that, and I don't feel like browsing the entire site.
Woops. Yeah, I misread that. In that case you're definitely not being ripped off, and given how much IPs usually cost, that is probably something which can really only be a v6 deal. Interesting. First I've seen anything like it. Thanks.
I connect to Facebook, Google and YouTube over IPv6. It's automatic, I guess on DNS side. I'm pretty sure they still have plenty of IPv4 interfaces. Going IPv6 only seems a little aggressive nowadays.
BTW, if you use Firefox there is an addon called FlushDNS that shows the IP address of the web server. It's main purpose is to remove an address from the DNS cache inside the browser but actually it's more useful as an inspection tool.
I have some v6-only services that I only use myself, but if I run a VM I do expect to be able to do this. And even if I'd always be able to fall back to v4, that's no reason for this not to be a bug.
Some of my work VMs which are not intended to be generally accessible to the public are IPv6-only.
It's not that I need to restrict access to them, just that they don't need IPv6, since anyone accessing them usually already has IPv6, and dual-stack is extra work.
