[throw0101a]

> However, it didn’t turn out that way in the real world. Every time my router resets, all of the IPv6 addresses in my home network change.

Fair enough. Though you can use private addresses for private networks:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unique_local_address

> The reason I don’t use IPv6 and 6:6 NAT is because the IPv6 designers feel this makes networking too complicated, never mind that NAT is a solved problem

The problems with NAT continue to grow. A whole swath of IPv4 addresses (100.64.0.0/10) were reserved to allow telcos to do CG-NAT. Because folks often used the usual private RFC 1918 at home, ISPs couldn't necessarily assign those address to client equipment because there was the potential for the same range (e.g., 10/8) to be on the "inside" of the user's router/CPE as on the "outside".

* https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6598

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_shared_address_space

Of course now we have double-NATing: once at at the CPE and again at the carrier. Is anyone living with triple-NATing in production?

[pkulak]

> Though you can use private addresses for private networks:

Yeah, but then they are not addressable outside your network, right?

[msbarnett]

Sure, but the same is true of the NATed IPv4 solution strenholme said they resorted to.

The person you’re responding to’s point was that strenholme did not need IPv4 and NAT just to get stable addresses for internal usage.