@brutus5000 said in Looking for feedback on whether people perceive more or less connection problems:
Internet service providers do weird things like shared ipv4 addresses between multiple customers and other fucked up stuff. So while IPv4 is in general more stable, there might be cases where ipv6 is the only option.
Technically speaking: IPv6 should be more stable, in theory that is of course.
Imagine that 2 peers whom both are behind CGNAT do get a server reflexive, or peer reflexive connection. Holes have been punched, connections are made, all is good. But then one of the CGNATs do some of these "fucked up stuff" like dropping the connection from their routing table, or whatever crazy thing (remember, thousands of folks share the same public IPv4 Address, and there are only 65535 ports to go around for them). Now the connection is lost. New holes need to be punched, the STUN server needs to get busy again for coordination, etc.
On the other hand, if both peers connect using IPv6, they get a direct end-to-end connection which needs only be routed, where the likeliness to mess it up is really slim. There are possibly only 2 router firewalls involved, which can make complications.
My experience with the enabled IPv6 support is actually very positive.
I made some logging modifications to the java ice adapter to see whenever I had an IPv6 connection realized with other peers.
I would actually suggest to make that option the default, and users would need to actively opt-out.
I think the world is now ready for IPv6.