Your "end-user routers suck ass" comment is totally true. I wish the end-user and SOHO networking gear market wasn't a fucking race to the bottom. Your other c

Your "end-user routers suck ass" comment is totally true. I wish the end-user and SOHO networking gear market wasn't a fucking race to the bottom. Your other comments simply aren't a substantial concern at end-user sites in the real world. * The only scopes that end-user sites might care about are global and link-local. I expect that situation is the same at nearly all non-end-user sites. Reading through the RFCs, it looks like the other scopes are ONLY relevant in multicast [0][1]... and even then, anything other than interface-local, link-local, and global looks like it's programmed into the routers and switches of the network, rather than host computers themselves. * If you have functional IPv6 service at your site, your application software cares as much about the interface's fe80::/10 link-local address as it does about the 169.254.0.0/16 link-local address... that is, not at all. The rule is simple: "If you want to talk globally, use an interface with a global address. If there's no global address, send it to the 'default' router and hope for the best.". It's actually a better situation than in IPv4 where you pretty much never have a globally-connected address. * Yes, you can do IPv6 NAT. In that case, you're no worse off than in the usual end-user IPv4 deployment. The cool thing about IPv6 is not that NAT doesn't exist, it's that there's far, far more than enough address space to make it so that you don't HAVE to deploy NAT at end-user sites. That doesn't mean that it's impossible for stupid, frightened, currently-ignorant, or revenue-maximizing ISPs to deploy NAT. [0] <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4291#section-2.7 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4291#section-2.7> [1] <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7346#section-2 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7346#section-2>