> I'd even argue that NAT is a good thing (security feature,) Any router that I’ve come across already blocks incoming IPv6 traffic by default, so I’d have to

> I'd even argue that NAT is a good thing (security feature,) Any router that I’ve come across already blocks incoming IPv6 traffic by default, so I’d have to disagree. NAT was designed for a very specific purpose and keeping it in a new implementation makes no sense if it’s not necessary, which it’s not if the hardware requires you to open incoming ports. No NAT would make it a lot easier to understand what’s happening too, since the process would be “allow traffic from the internet to this device” rather than creating a translation for an internal address, possibly having to set up a MAC reservation to ensure the DHCP lease doesn’t expire etc.