I'm not trying to be aggressive here. But what's the actual end user difference between NAT and firewalled ipv6 for me and my local network then? I assume I could route now than one addresses for a specific port. On the other hand I have to pay for domain record to access my local resource without a struggle.
Should I use ipv6 at home when my doesn't have one?
I honestly struggle to find good information on the protocol that's decades old. It's either to deep for me to care for my needs or too shallow to understand why and how should I just it. Scaremongering is what I find on the internet. And no real benefits for me to update my hardware or find ISP that has ipv6.
I can kind of relate to the feeling of IPv6 being "new and scary" to back in 1995 when I barely grasped IPv4 routing... everything becomes clear eventually with experience and exposure... hopefully eventually I'll understand more IPv6 concepts with time. I "want to believe". :)
But I do fully get that firewall without NAT is perfectly fine (great) in an IPv6 world - but may be necessary in simpler multi-ISP routing scenarios...
The difference is that traversal protocols like UDP hole punching work deterministically almost 100% of the time in an IPv6 environment but are flaky in an IPv4 NAT environment.
It also means that you never experience port exhaustion on large networks, which is a problem for large IPv4 NAT deployments.
Should I use ipv6 at home when my doesn't have one?
I honestly struggle to find good information on the protocol that's decades old. It's either to deep for me to care for my needs or too shallow to understand why and how should I just it. Scaremongering is what I find on the internet. And no real benefits for me to update my hardware or find ISP that has ipv6.