Enabling IPv6 for content motivates ISPs to enable IPv6 for users, and vice versa; it's a positive feedback loop.
Consider an ISP with Native IPv6 and NAT'd IPv4. (T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless are specific examples in the USA.) When you dual-stack your server, that traffic no longer needs to traverse the NAT, so users may see better performance.
There's no way to avoid NAT in general, because there simply aren't enough IPv4 addresses to go around, but ISPs should be able to deploy NAT equipment with the assumption that the operational costs will decline over time as IPv6 becomes more popular.
Putting stateful NAT boxes everywhere is antithetical to the concept of a free, neutral network, so we should all be striving to make the alternative viable.
Consider an ISP with Native IPv6 and NAT'd IPv4. (T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless are specific examples in the USA.) When you dual-stack your server, that traffic no longer needs to traverse the NAT, so users may see better performance.
There's no way to avoid NAT in general, because there simply aren't enough IPv4 addresses to go around, but ISPs should be able to deploy NAT equipment with the assumption that the operational costs will decline over time as IPv6 becomes more popular.
Putting stateful NAT boxes everywhere is antithetical to the concept of a free, neutral network, so we should all be striving to make the alternative viable.