Do you really think Roomba is going to let you run your Robot Vacuum without contacting, er permission, from their data center in Virginia?
So this is completely unrelated. IP addressing schemes will not change the business methods of large consumer device companies.
That's exactly the point; they market it as if it would make a plethora of new and innovative things happen but in reality they will allow none of it.
So, it's pointless to rush adoption.
How much innovation and applications have been stymied by artificial network-layer barriers:
> First is actually a more subtle issue... the Skype peer-to-peer network architecture elected certain nodes to be "supernodes", to help maintain the index of peers as well as handle parts of the NAT/firewall traversal for other peers.
* https://ip.topicbox.com/groups/ip/T9f6a724f4bcd6616-M0e99aba...
* https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/05/skype...
CPE gear has gotten better hole punching over time (PCP, UPnP), but one still has to futz around with STUN/ICE/TURN.
We've invented entirely new protocols (QUIC) because of middleware boxes blocking things (SCTP, DCCP) and generally getting in the way.
What I meant in the grandparent comment is that if a company makes it their business strategy to have all devices call home, they will do that regardless if they use ipv4 or ipv6. But if ipv6 is widely implemented and there is no cost to ip addresses, it is entirely possible that another company can create an ap that allows you to directly communicate to your devices without using a central server.
Ideally yes, but IRL they are related concepts. Things will get misconfigured, often by default.
> So we can get rid of STUN/ICE/etc and make peer-to-peer easier. All you're left with is hole punching through your SPI firewall (no worse than today).
There’s (IMO) a much better reason: so your endpoints can have globally unique addresses. If I have a service in Google Cloud and a service in AWS and an on-prem service and a customer service and ten different upstream services from ten different hosted providers, I want these services to have different addresses, TYVM. And I want to configure my networking to them without needing to worry about whether all parties actually agree on the addressing scheme.
This is far more important than actually making anything globally routable. If my AWS thingy is 192.168.3.7, I don’t need whatever random third party service I’m using to be able to route to 192.168.3.7 (and I’d probably prefer that it not be able to route there). But I don’t want to worry about the service provider using 192.168.3.7 for another purpose.
I’d also like traceroute to work without having a bunch of intermediate hops where the addresses simply cannot be mapped to their owners without extra side knowledge of the network topology.
Complications with address space collisions (esp. M&A) was one of the reasons give in this Wells Fargo presentation from 2014:
> ok, but why?
So we can get rid of STUN/ICE/etc and make peer-to-peer easier. All you're left with is hole punching through your SPI firewall (no worse than today).
> Are you _really_ just going to allow random traffic into your network?
I don't know why this misconception is so wide spread: globally addressable ≠ globally reachable.
Firewalls still exist with IPv6.
Before I recently changed ISPs, I was with one which gave out IPv6, and so all devices had an address (including things like my printer). But I couldn't initiate connections from the outside in—only replies to internally-initiated messages were let in by my Asus.
Even if things were wide open—which they were not—good luck scanning a /64.