alt Hacker News> I learn new things all the time. IPv6 is much more complicated, and importantly, more complicated than it needs to be. There is really no reason for most devices to be publicly reachable.
Sigh. This myth really won't die.
Publicly addressable ≠ publicly reachable.
With my last ISP I had IPv6: every device (including my printer) on my local network had a public IPv6 address, but exactly zero were reachable thanks to the stateful packet inspection (SPI) on my Asus.
Replies
>>Yes, a firewall can prevent these connection
>Publicly addressable ≠ publicly reachable.
I already addressed this, and I know how firewalls work. It would be nice if on a per-device basis I could opt into a choice to be publicly addressable. Instead, the entire standard is built around this.
You’re either arguing about semantics or missed the point they were trying to make. If it doesn’t have to be publicly reachable, why should it be publicly addressable in the first place? I can’t think of any common requirement that will be afforded to users having devices that will never need to be publicly reachable be publicly addressable. Considering most peoples use cases solely involve home networks of devices that they definitely do not want to be publicly reachable, why is needing to explicitly disallow that better for them?
In non-abstract terms, I just don’t see how that works better.