I spent a week without IPv4 to understand IPv6 transition mechanisms

Everyone always goes with the "You don't need NAT, everything is globally routable!" argument, as if that's something that anybody wants. Everything on my network is going to go through my firewall anyway. I don't want anything on my network to be globally routable. Of course, this is not a good reason to not use IPv6, don't get me wrong. It's a problem that's easy to overcome, I just think it's not a good way to get people excited about…

I’m surprised home many technically knowledgeable people on Internet forums still think IPv6 is some niche, unreliable thing. In my direct experience, in the USA, at least Spectrum, AT&T, and Xfinity (Comcast) still run IPv4, of course, but they also have IPv6 working and on by default on their home internet offerings. All mainstream computer and mobile OSes support it by default and will prefer to connect with it over IPv4. ‘Everyone’ in many areas is using it. For many…

great job with the technical details and understanding all this. But I like this quote: "IPv6 is a 1990s solution to a 1980s problem, designed by committee before we fully understood how the internet would evolve. It solves address exhaustion, but creates more problems than it fixes — and doesn't align with how modern networks actually work." IPv6 was designed under the assumption that: NAT was bad Every device should be globally addressable Hierarchical routing and massive address spaces were…