Won't you always be able to use it for local networks? I like NAT and regardless of IPv6, I think I'll keep my home network as IPv4 in a NAT and completely block outgoing and incoming per-device-IPv6.
Why the desire for a NAT? It's technically possible on IPv6 too (NAT66), but SLAAC dynamic addresses + a non-NAT firewall + possibly ULA are generally a better way to get the combination of privacy + security + local addressing I think most people associate with NAT in IPv4.
Well for me until Linux shall support IPv4 my machines shall be on IPv4 behind NAT. And yet I'm enjoying IPv6 with my ISP-provider router transparently doing the heavy lifting and using IPv6.
> and completely block outgoing and incoming per-device-IPv6.
Same. I do just that: it's disable by a kernel parameter, in sysctl and in the firewall, just in case I'd mess up and re-enable one or two of these.
You can pry IPv4 on my LAN from my cold dead hands.
I don't care what the ISP does with the router it provides to me. If it uses IPv6 or whatever. In my case their router will only see another device which is only capable of using IPv4, so it better deal with it.
Nobody is suggesting you stop using v4 on your LAN, but you do need to use v6 on it.
If you want to avoid v6 altogether, you can use a proxy on the machine you're currently calling your router, and configure all of your programs to use the proxy. But... nobody wants to use proxies.