Re: Address allocated but not live
"No, I'm pretty sure that most people do want their stuff on the internet."
More likely people want the internet on their stuff but not necessarily the other way around. They want to connect their laptop, desktop, tablet, phone etc to the net. What they don't want is Joe Random on the net connecting to the above. It's a one way thing.
A smaller set of stuff doesn't get connected either way - my printer and NAS don't need to see the net, nor do they need to be visible from outside.
Then there's another class of stuff that some folk do want on the net: their Nest, their webcam etc. And just look at the problems that's causing for everyone else; most of us would be happier if none of that had got on the net. It's been a big illustration of the problems that happen when Joe Random can connect to their stuff.
The first case has been handled well by IPv4 & domestic routers for a long time and a part of that is that NAT ensures that the individual device can't be directly addressed from the wider net. At the same time the services behind the router/firewall/whatever can talk to each other; I can print from my laptop or exchange files with my NAS. Somebody in another comment mentioned NAT breaking end-to-end routing. That's just what these use cases need.
It's these first use cases that need to be addressed simply by IPv6. Being told that address randomisation answers users' concerns by preventing being tracked is a failure to understand the issue. My printer isn't going to be tracked anyway but what I don't want is someone coming across my printer on its current randomised address and either dropping a load of stuff to be printed just because they can or taking advantage of a zero-day to enrol it into a botnet.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
