> It's nothing special, you can expect every NIC to support this, this is basic stuff, you can expect it to work on everything every time. Even if every NIC su

> It's nothing special, you can expect every NIC to support this, this is basic stuff, you can expect it to work on everything every time. Even if every NIC supports it, how do I know that every OS supports it? Every system I've ever used has only needed a single address, so the multiple-address cases would seem to be a small minority (and mostly in networks with homogeneous systems), and not something I'd expect to be thoroughly tested on every random IoT device. > If an address isn't routable, which may be the case in a NAT network, then it's no big deal since you can just threaten the receptionist to tell you where to go What do you mean? If a host doesn't have its incoming connections forwarded from the router's global address, then how can it be accessed from the outside? > If something can magically get past your firewall then that implies they have full control of your router now and can route packets wherever they like You still haven't explained why this is the case. How does a firewall that exposes the router's address necessarily allow arbitrary control over the router? After all, I can access the router on my WAN all I want through its local address, and yet I'm still unable to reconfigure it. > I'm reiterating here but everything I've described so far is in relation to IPv4, all IPv6 introduces to the equation is: more addresses so you don't need NAT, a clever way to do dhcp on a local host without router intervention My big concern here is that I don't necessarily want every local host to be responsible for managing this, since I trust the router to have correct behavior far more than I trust every arbitrary host to have correct behavior.