In practice the stagnation of IPv6 seems to be a recognition of the unintended security that NAT with IPv4 adds. From a security perspective, having every device use a public IP and trying to prevent malicious software from simply opening whatever ports it needs per device would be a headache.
NAT brings no security, especially in this scenario. If you want to prevent malicious software from opening ports, you use a public facing firewall on your gateway. Which you should have for IPv4 as well.
In practice the stagnation of IPv6 seems to be a recognition of the unintended security that NAT with IPv4 adds. From a security perspective, having every device use a public IP and trying to prevent malicious software from simply opening whatever ports it needs per device would be a headache.
It’s slow but stagnation is a disingenuous way of putting it. https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html
NAT brings no security, especially in this scenario. If you want to prevent malicious software from opening ports, you use a public facing firewall on your gateway. Which you should have for IPv4 as well.