Pinging www.jogback.se [2a00:801:a:100::1:137] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 2a00:801:a:100::1:137: time=48ms
Reply from 2a00:801:a:100::1:137: time=45ms
Reply from 2a00:801:a:100::1:137: time=47ms
Reply from 2a00:801:a:100::1:137: time=45ms
Pinging www.jogback.se [192.165.82.137] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.165.82.137: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=51
Reply from 192.165.82.137: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=51
Reply from 192.165.82.137: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=51
Reply from 192.165.82.137: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=51
So latency is no different, so all us FPSers aren't goign to be leaving in droves if ther is no ipv6 launched.
Not seen anything that means IPv6 packets are more reliable than ipv4 packets either.
In terms of security - sure some NAT may have security holes in them, but ipv6 is a huge potential to screw security up! Every device is now directly scannable and addressable from the Internet, yikes lets hope people configure their firewalls correctly, but not so correctly they block ports the games want to use!
Pretty much every game I have played does not rely on gateways to get past NAT to play them, sure some games that require one of the users to host it have a central server to connect and establish the game then its peer to peer, so not much again on the reliability front that differs IMO.
The point about STUN is the problem NAT has with the unsolicited inbound UDP and not knowing where to forward it to, ipv6 gets around this as the sender knows exactly where to send it to, although the firewall you have to protect your end devices on the internet needs telling about the unsolicited inbound UDP stream unless you want a bunch of open firewall holes or hope the firewall can inspect the internals of the packets to work out where it thinks the traffic will come in.
Sure, I love ipv6 and I wish everyone had it, but at the end of the day back to your original post I dont think there is a mass market of gamers who will shun plusnet because they haven't rolled ipv6 to everyone. As plusnet havnt revealed their ipv6 plans we don't know they are dragging their heels they may have decided to wait until there is real demand before adding complexity into operations.
Imagine every packet loss or latency thread issue on here having to be diagnosed on v4 and v6 to see where the issues are etc. lots of complexity for not much benefit at the moment.
Gamers will always head to the best offering to gain competitive advantages.
True, traffic prioritisation of gaming traffic over bulk file downloads so your latency doesnt spike is a pretty big advantage in a multi user house, usually much more than ipv6 so you don't have to go through NAT on your router (which at most is adding < 1ms latency)
