[apitman]

In theory direct connections between all devices on the internet. In practice, everything's still going to be behind a firewall. But it's still an improvement over NAT, and hopefully we'll eventually get universally adopted protocols for applications to open ports.

I've been using IPv6 more recently, and one nice thing as a developer is being able to use the same IP address for local connections and internet connections. Simplifies managing TLS certs for example, since the IP address used by Let's Encrypt is the same one I'm connecting to while developing.

[bawolff]

You misunderstand. I'm asking why IPv6 would help this specific situation, not why ipv6 is nice in general. None of what you said applies to this context.

[apitman]

You're right, I was responding to your comment directly and not taking context into account.

I guess maybe what GP is getting at is that with vhosts on IPv4 you need to have some sort of load balancer in order to share the IP, but with IPv6 you can flatten this out and give every host it's own IP?

[remram]

If you have multiple machines with their own IPs, v4 or v6 makes no difference. If you have a single machine (vhosting), the number of IPs and their type makes no difference.

[apitman]

The difference is IPv4 addresses are far more expensive

[remram]

I will quote the comment you are trying to justify:

> With ipv6 they can now be fully scaled easily but they are absolutely awesome, much easier to scale because you can give your client a simple list of sse services and its essentially stateless if done right.

If you don't understand it either please stop saying random stuff about IPv6 that we already know and has nothing to do with this thread.

[apitman]

I stand by my comment. I think the suggestion that scaling might be limited by IPv4 cost is a reasonable guess as to OP's concerns.