> Just tossing IPv6 as a replacement for ipv4 with out factoring that in while simply screaming into the void "NAT IS NOT A FIREWALL" will be of little comfort

> Just tossing IPv6 as a replacement for ipv4 with out factoring that in while simply screaming into the void "NAT IS NOT A FIREWALL" will be of little comfort to the elderly retiree that has their home computer ransomwared, or the small business that is put under due to a cyber attack because the ipv6 address was strait on the public internet This is definitely what I'm seeing. IPv4 is really engrained in us - I actually had a really hard time conceptualizing how things worked until I forced myself to learn by deploying dual-stack and ipv6-only networks. The major downside I see right now is that "addresses are harder to memorize," but there are solutions to that as well.