I believe his objection is that, being realistic about these things, administrators won't bother to seperately administer IPv6, when it doesn't confer any advan

I believe his objection is that, being realistic about these things, administrators won't bother to seperately administer IPv6, when it doesn't confer any advantage to the first movers. It's not about what should happen, it's about what will, taking into account the reality of human behaviour. And even if 95% of sites out there did enable IPv6, then everyone will still want IPv4 addresses so that they can still reach that last 1-in-20 - the transition simply can't happen until all existing sites are reachable over v6. I don't think he's an "IPv6 opponent", I think he just makes a good case that there isn't a workable transition plan.