[btilly]

I only care about one point. That NAT is not a security feature.

The original reason that I began using NAT was so that my ISP couldn't charge me per device. You just plugged in a NAT enabled router, and ran everything behind it. That became so ubiquitous that ISPs gave up on trying.

My concern about IPv6 is that ISPs will want to go back to charging per device. I didn't like that then, and I don't want it now.

[mSparks]

From a host perspective it's a great security feature. you have a local address means your host cannot be contacted from the outside world. You want your host to have an IPv6 address, VPN into an IPv6 provider.

The fact that demand for this is so low, just goes to show it's not needed at the moment.

In fact, I can't think of a single reason "why" IPv6 would be needed.

I definately don't want all my devices to have a web reachable address, far from it, total security nightmare.

one entry point - a VPN on IPv4 is just great thanks, secure and easy to manage. want to access my other devices, jump on the VPN.

I that sense, you can describe IPv6 security, as configuring your VPN with no password and letting anyone connect to it.

The other way to look at it, is the successsor to IPv4 is called tor.

[amaranth]

> one entry point - a VPN on IPv4 is just great thanks, secure and easy to manage. want to access my other devices, jump on the VPN.

There are 4 billion IPv4 addresses and 7 billion people on the planet. Before we even get into business use of IPv4 for servers and such we don't have enough addresses to do what you want.

[mikeash]

It's not like NAT stops working with IPv6, it just becomes much less necessary. If your ISP starts being stupid like that, just keep NATting.