> Anonymity-by-crowd is the point
Only for IP based trackers. Any webpages embedding facebook/twitter/microsoft/google trackers have already deanonymised you through a variety of fingerprinting techniques. This includes if you use private browsing sessions, and even qubesOS. You get a fuzzy feeling doing the things you do (and I do these things too), but that battle is lost.
> NAT + default-deny inbound is simple, effective security … That's a concrete property I get for free
Depends on your definition of “free”. Is it cheaper to lookup just a connection state table, or is it cheaper to look up both a connection state table and a NAT table?
> IPv6 adds configuration surface I don't want … More features means more things to audit, understand, and misconfigure.
100% agreed. More complexity, more attack surface, more things to go wrong.
> I already solved "reaching my own stuff" without global addressing … It's better than being globally routable.
I do something like this too. It’s more private and more secure. It adds more complexity, and it restricts my ability to access things from terminals I don’t personally own & control unless I create another exposed vector though. “Better” is subjective based on metrics being optimised for.
> IPv6 wasn't designed as "IPv4 with more bits." It was designed as a reimagining of how networks should work: global addressability as a first-class property
Apologies, but global addressability as a first-class property is exactly how the internet was designed. NAT was originally deployed as a hacky add-on to temporarily alleviate the lack of addressing space in IPv4 until a successor could resolve that.
That said, the internet of the 90s was a very different beast to the internet of today. A lot of your concerns and perspective is absolutely valid and extremely reasonable given the internet of today.
> "It serves my goals better than IPv4" is the bar, and IPv6 doesn't meet it. Never has, never will … Want me to adopt a new addressing scheme? Give me a new addressing scheme, don't impose an opinionated routing philosophy on me.
IPv6 can absolutely be configured in ways that just gives you a new addressing scheme and does away with a lot of the other complexity. You’re just very much straying off the happy path, removing complexity by introducing … other complexity.
FWIW, I’m operating my home networks much the same way you do. I’ve also been dual stacking networks since the 2000s. Things have come a long way since the original pure-dogma introduction of ipv6.