Good points, the difference being NAT crossing requires something on the inside to enable it, while IP6 security requires the consumer router to be properly configured.
And I disagree with the assumption that badly configured routers won’t exist if IP6 were the default. Bad design doesn’t magically go away.
The bottom line is small LANs don’t benefit from IP6 today. Large LANS don’t benefit because they already have extensive IP4 configuration in place, and attempting to migrate is costly, risky, and without a clear benefit to offset those costs and risks.
Most likely enterprises may use 6 on new networks, but even that is questionable when so many extant products still rely on 4 - you don’t want to create a problem for those systems.
Good points, the difference being NAT crossing requires something on the inside to enable it, while IP6 security requires the consumer router to be properly configured.
And I disagree with the assumption that badly configured routers won’t exist if IP6 were the default. Bad design doesn’t magically go away.
The bottom line is small LANs don’t benefit from IP6 today. Large LANS don’t benefit because they already have extensive IP4 configuration in place, and attempting to migrate is costly, risky, and without a clear benefit to offset those costs and risks.
Most likely enterprises may use 6 on new networks, but even that is questionable when so many extant products still rely on 4 - you don’t want to create a problem for those systems.