Plus dual-stack means more work, and more possibilities for misconfigurations or vulnerabilities in your network. It'd be way easier if you only had to worry about one or the other.
I live in the US and my ISP gives me one address I have to share across all the machines in my house. That's a tragedy - by all rights I should have a subnet or two. You can't directly address any of my servers from the outside on IPv4 which means I have to do hacky crap like port forwarding and can't use a lot of the older protocols that aren't NAT friendly. And I've got it good compared to most of the world!
IPv6 gives us back a large chunk of the original premise of the Internet - that all nodes are peers. IPv4 hasn't been able to do that for decades, and it's warped the way we think about networking by separating everyone into consumers and providers.
[–] simoncion 1 hour ago
[–] spauldo 1 hour ago
Yeah, sure, if your requirements can be met by a cable modem, then you're basically good to go. Until DNS breaks for some machines and not others, and it's because your ISP screwed something in their IPv6 routing but it still works on IPv4. Or Microsoft's authentication servers decide they don't like your IPv6 subnet anymore and Minecraft refuses to start unless you turn IPv6 off. Or... You get the idea.
Nope. Your OS vendor already did the work to make both versions of IP work. And as I mentioned, if you're using a decent firewall you can write IP-version-agnostic rules just as easily as you can ones that depend on the version.
Plus, most SOHO firewalls default to dropping unsolicited non-ICMP traffic. That's the exact same security stance that IPv4 + NAT gives you. You have to go out of your way (or be using fancy gear that is aimed at people who know what they're doing) to expose your LAN hosts.