[pdkl95]

Of course you'll keep your firewall. NAT != Firewall

Your firewall may start with a simple "deny all incoming SYN packets" rule, but IPv6 gives you the option to open up holes in the firewall to any device or devices on your LAN (port forwarding only works once per port through a NAT).

The real benefits probably don't exist yet. There are entire categories of network software that have remained unknown and unexplored because it didn't work behind a NAT. There were several projects I wanted to write ~15 years ago that I never even started because it required a real internet connection, not a NAT "party line".

[brianwawok]

> Your firewall may start with a simple "deny all incoming SYN packets" rule, but IPv6 gives you the option to open up holes in the firewall to any device or devices on your LAN (port forwarding only works once per port through a NAT).

But see.. I can already do that with IPv4 and Nat. Oh I want to run a ftp server on my backend? Open up port 8000 on my firewall and forward to port 21 on my FTP server.

I find it weird I am making this argument, as I am normally progressive. I push Python3 over Python2, because it is the way of the future. Even though it causes me pain sometime. For some reason, I just do not see the (for me personally) reason to care about ipv6.

Clearly the more backbones that support it, the better. It at least gives us the OPTION to use it later. Not totally sure what good it will do still though ;)

[pilif]

> Oh I want to run a ftp server on my backend? Open up port 8000 on my firewall and forward to port 21 on my FTP server

funny you mention FTP where that is distinctly not true as the application level protocol encodes IP addresses and ports to either (depending on PASV mode) peer to open for the data transfer.

If your server is behind a NAT and the user is using passive mode, it'll tell the client to connect to some internal ip address, so unless the NAT router does deep packet inspection and alters your packet on the go, that won't fly.

Conversely, if you disable passive mode, a NATed client would have the same issue because in that case it would tell the server to connect to some internal IP on the client's side which too won't fly.

Same issue for all other protocols that have IP addresses in their payload. There are very few of them these days for precisely this reason, many early media streaming and VoIP protocols were doing this too.

Also somewhat related: Port forwarding from one public address only gives you the ability to forward to one specific server. What if you want to run two different HTTP servers on your backend? What if you want to run different SMTP servers on your backend.

Now you're again down to needing packet-contents inspection or you need multiple public IPs in the first place plus a more complicated NAT table. With v6, all you need is to open a few ports.

And these were the technical issues.

There's also a political issue: As v4 addresses get more and more scarce, so increases the control entities with addresses get to have over what services they do and to not allow on the network.

Do we want to live in a place where no new service gets to participate in the internet? Where the next Netflix can't launch because none of the providers want to have yet another service competing against their own content business?

In order for the internet to continue to grow, we need an abundance of addresses and the only way to get that is to have wide-spread v6 support. And in order to get there, every single bit counts: Every service that can offer v6 should. Every provider that can offer v6 should. Only this way we can avoid one big cause for a very much locked down internet in the hands of the providers and the old guard.

v6 plays a very important role for both technical and political reasons to the point where we really need to fight the "v4 works fine for me" attitude. Having a v4 address to run a service on is a privilege. Don't argue from a privileged position based on lazyness.

[pdkl95]

(pilif already covered the main arguments, so I'll keep this short)

> ftp server ... port 8000

Of course there are workarounds. This one requires specifying a non-standard port every time you want to use your server. That may be easy[1] now, but it becomes increasingly problematic the more times you create these workarounds.

The bigger issue is that hosts behind the NAT are not first-class citizens of the internet. They require an imprimatur[2] to publish. If you live in a privileged area that has a static v4 address, this isn't a huge problem. If you live in China behind 3+ layers of NAT, getting a port forwarded to your host isn't going to happen. As NAT becomes more complicated with more layers, even the insane hacks[3] we have to punch holes in NAT (which already require a 3rd party's permission (imprimatur)) start to fail. This will become an increasingly common problem as competition over v4 addresses increases[4].

> Not totally sure what good it will do still though ;)

It will enable the development of new network software that doesn't work over NAT. This type of benefit isn't immediately useful, so think of it as an investment.

It will let more people gain the benefit of being able to publish without needing the permission of a 3rd party. You may not find that important personally, but impartial media access is one of the most important properties of the internet. If we are not vigilant and robust in defense of every peer's right to publish, we will loose it. This isn't a theoretical concern, given how centralized the internet has become in the era of Facebook and Google.

[1] modulo the serious problems that FTP has with NAT that pilif already mentioned

[2] While I don't agree with everything in the essay (some things have changed since 2003), John Walker (co-founder of Autodesk) wrote a very insightful warning about the trend towards requiring an imprimatur to publish: https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/

[3] http://www.brynosaurus.com/pub/net/p2pnat/

[4] http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html