It really is difficult to take this seriously when they suggest disabling IPv6. There are already quite a good number of ISPs that use CGNAT for IPv4, which oft

It really is difficult to take this seriously when they suggest disabling IPv6. There are already quite a good number of ISPs that use CGNAT for IPv4, which often means that connections die or are intentionally killed in short amounts of time, which can be a huge PITA for certain uses (interactive shells, large downloads, et cetera). Take Starlink for instance. When on IPv4, you really feel like you're on a janky network that's being rebooted every hour or two. After Starlink enabled IPv6, all sorts of things no longer required babysitting and restarting. The quality difference between IPv4 via CGNAT and native IPv6 is huge and noticeable, even for people who have no idea what's going on behind the scenes. Perhaps regular people can naively suggest turning off IPv6 because they don't know any better and they believe the FUD they've heard and read about, but if you're putting up a web site claiming to have good advice and you put more weight on FUD over real world experience and solid reasoning, then I'd be suspicious about everything they've written.