For most purposes, IPv6 works the same as v4 (only it has bigger addresses: 128-bit instead of 32-bit). Everything in the blog post works identically if you just swap in IPv6 addresses :)
For one, address allocation is entirely different. Devices will have several addresses, and some of them can be temporary addresses.
If your ISP assigns you dynamic prefixes (mine does), you can end up with devices not being able to connect to the internet after the router/modem reboots, since they're not told about the new prefix you just got from your ISP and happily keeps using the old one.
If your ISP assigns you dynamic prefixes (mine does), dynamic DNS is required for each server box (apparently one can centralize this by using DHCP-PD, but I haven't figured this out for my pfSense router).
And if you're writing an IPv6-enabled application, parsing client/server address input is a PITA compared to IPv4.
The list goes on and on, but these were the major pain points I found while trying to use IPv6 at home, which are non-existent when using IPv4.
Well there goes your problem…
For whatever reason I get a new IPv6 prefix every time the modem or router reboots.
Meanwhile it never hurts to automate your handling of renumbering, it'll happen eventually anyway - just like letsencrypt short expiration times actually help you avoid cert expiration problems.
You have a broken router setup, it's not doing router advertisement. Every reply of yours in this thread is just you complaining about something that you misconfigured on your router or did not bother reading about in any decent IPv6 introduction. Please stop the FUD.
That's the understatement of the year. IPv6 is a huge protocol and its complexity is its main weakness and one of the main reasons people and organizations stay away from it.
You are completely ignoring routing issues. IPv6 is designed from the ground up for efficient route aggregation, and more importantly the processes ARIN and RIR use for allocation are based around this. There is no way IPv4 routing would scale to what IPv6 is going to be in 10 years if you "just added" some octets. What are you going to do, force everyone to re-number?
Theoretically yes, in practice not at all. Just one major difference: No NAT any more.
The funny thing is, there will be mandatory NAT on the carrier side during transition to IPv6 because of unwillingness of major websites to announce AAAA (including this one). See [0] for some transition method examples. The common theme of these methods is: They spoof DNS to point to fake IPv6 addresses, which is horrible, HORRIBLE, but hopefully motivates IPv4 holdouts to move to IPv6, announce AAAAs.
If you want to see what a wasteland IPv6 still currently is, and why such transition NAT madness will be necessary (sadly): Try disabling IPv4 when you have native IPv6 and your carrier has not enabled such DNS spoofing transition methods yet.
It's entirely reasonable to say "It works fine without [=zero business value], no need to invest that amount of work.". This makes IPv6 a negative value proposition for many orgs.
I mostly focus on users of VPN services. It's still rare for them to handle IPv6 traffic. So if you have IPv6 connectivity, IPv6 will leak, bypassing the VPN. Unless you have firewall rules, or disable IPv6 while using the VPN.
If so, that is a difference from IPv4. Don't block IPs, block subnets. Block the whole /64. It's what you were doing with IPv4 anyway - blocking a whole building / office / etc at once!
That's still no reason to turn IPv6 off in my humble opinion...
Most stuff defaults to bucketing by /64s.
IP blocking is far from ideal, in both versions of IP.. IPv6 makes this no better, or worse.
For most users, the transition will happen via dual-stack (where the customer runs their own IPv4 NAT), not NAT64.
I'm in India and my mobile service provider (Jio) is handing out ipv6 addresses. The fascinating thing about this is I was able to access a server hosted on my phone from Internet. Crazy!
I am loving this era.
Maybe a firewall would be prudent ;)