At the very least then, you need it as a prerequisite for something else that you want. Or perhaps I'm assuming too much about your network here. Let me double-

At the very least then, you need it as a prerequisite for something else that you want. Or perhaps I'm assuming too much about your network here. Let me double-check: do you use NAT? You've said things about it, but do you use it on your network? NAT applies on top of routing, so you can't use it without routing. If you're using NAT, then you've made your devices routable. Whatever you say about not wanting to do that, you did do that, so it must have been preferable to you in some manner or another. I know this would contradict your claim that you only have a router to make your network unroutable, but that claim never made any sense in the first place. It's the job of a router to make a network routable. > NAT used that way usually, because other solutions are lacking or too expensive, and because the people who invented IPv6 didn't bother trying to solve real problems. Nobody is using it to get a single point of control. In order to NAT you need to set a router up, which means you already have a single point of control. There's no need to also do NAT and it won't help either, so it's not being used for this. It's not usually being used for anonymity either, because most people using it only have a single IP address in the first place and that's the one all their NATed connections appear to come from. They get no anonymity from NAT. The people who invented v6 did bother trying to solve real problems. But getting a single point of control was never a real problem and didn't need solving; the real problem was the lack of address space, which they did solve.