[throw0101a]

> IPv6 is identical to IPv4 in terms of what "freedom" you have on the internet.

It is easier to offer services on IPv6 IMHO. If you want to have some boxes at home to SSH into, you need to provide port forwarding after the first.

So for the first system in IPv4 you would have pubip:22 -> inta:22, but then you have to do pubip:23 -> intb:22, pubip:24 -> intc:22, etc.

With IPv6 you can just use the hosts' IPv6 addresses and punch holes for :22 for each individual system as desired: no port tomfoolery needed.

[peterwwillis]

Sure, but you're talking about using NAT vs not using NAT. You can still get a dozen IPv4 addresses from an ISP and do the same thing as IPv6. But you have to pay for 'em.

The ISP can decide to impose exactly the same limit on allocated IPv6 as IPv4, and charge you for more hosts. Your freedom hasn't changed, only your billing has.

[throw0101a]

I can get a static IPv4 address for a nominal fee with my residential account. My ISP also gives me a /56, so I have quite a few addresses to play with without a 'business account'.

So from where I'm standing IPv6 is not identical to IPv4.

[bartwe]

That is the ideal. But i dont see the home router nat going away. Infact in many ways it is a good thing every home has a nat/firewall going, removing that for ipv6 would be a step backwards. Better and more reliable upnp would be nice.

[ownagefool]

You'd want the firewall configured with default deny, but there's no need to keep the NAT.