Almost all of my computers, including my phone, are behind wireguard on a globally routed /64 IPV6 virtual network.
It's a bit of a pain for some sites who do not offer a V6 addie via DNS, but it's extremely flexible and offer tons of other advantages.
Specifically, NAT is basically a thing of the past and any of my devices can talk to all of my other devices by establishing a simple TCP connection or shooting a UDP packet at them.
I can also access all of my devices from wherever I am connected to the internet, as long as the device has a globally routed V6 addie.
> Don’t you need a basic router/nat to protect your systems?
No, not really. It's no longer the 90s so tcp/ip stacks aren't easily crashed. And it's no longer the 90s, so no services are listening by default or it's say openssh which isn't easily crashed either (you may want to consider if you want to accept passwords via ssh though).
Additionally, decent OSes will rate limit responses to pings and SYNs and what not, so you won't be a good reflector out of the box.
Yet another over-subscribed device to rewrite packets between you and your destination. Spontaneous connection failures due to port exhaustion or overly aggressive connection timers/recycling. Lack of public to private connectability due to absence of port mapping, or any way to influence the configuration of your carrier’s device.
> How many humans browse internet with IPv6 only devices?
If you browse the net on your phone, it's likely you already do or sit behind some kludged up NAT situation which - among other things - severly curtails your freedom to interact with other devices on the internet.
And things aren't going to improve in that regard given the shortage of V4 addies.
I'd prefer a much smaller range but being able to request as many as I want via DHCP (or equivalent mechanism). That way it wouldn't be contiguous so I wouldn't feel as much of a need to use a VPN for privacy. As it is, what's the point of handing me an entire /48 if I just end up forcing most of my traffic through a single IPv4 address with a VPN for most of my web browsing anyway?
Although to be fair even with non-contiguous address space I might still want a VPN since ISPs in the US are allowed to sell your browsing history.
Also if I'm hosting a public facing service at home I'm going to proxy it via wireguard through a VPS I rent for obvious security reasons. I don't actually want public facing services directly exposed from my home network and I have to question the sanity of anyone who says they do.
And I've always disabled webrtc for obvious privacy (ie network fingerprinting) reasons. What's so great about getting rid of NAT again?
Unless the person uses t-mobile, which puts a lot of people on very small IP blocks, which is such a huge logistical nightmare for enforcing bans. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32038215