Re: You don't need NAT for IPv6
home routers already have firewalls
They do? All of them?
Because if any ship without firewalls - *any* - then your assertion and all the inferences you draw from it are entirely wrong.
The point is we need IPv6 to make it easier to do peer to peer things like videos, gaming, telephone
No, we don't. I'm already doing that - sans the gaming, usually, as that's not my thing - on IPv4 with NAT. It's all very well asserting that IPv6 is "needed" for $application, but reality does not bear that out. Feynman had good things to say about what happens when your theory doesn't agree with reality...
Removing NAT removes a level of CPU and memory requirements that saves electricity and latency
Bullshit. You're still processing stuff, just in a slightly different way.
IPv6 brings a raft of other things, multicast is one example
IPv6 brings in a number of things, but multicast is not one of them. I've been doing multicast over IPv4 for years. If you watch TV, the chances are you're watching the product of multicast over IPv4, as that's how substantially all the content providers work[1]. Multicast is entirely orthogonal to IPv6.
Vic.
[1] I'm not even sure if the encoders in use even support IPv6; certainly the ones I worked on don't. AFAIK, there's very little demand for it...