Disagree, respectfully. With IPV4, it's extremely common, especially on consumer home routers to be behind a NAT. IPv6 destroys your privacy because it's now very easy for Google, click networks, NSA? to track a device behind a firewall. There's a reason Google is pushing IPv6 so hard.
It would be nice to agree to disagree, but we really need IPv6 to displace IPv4.
Google is pushing IPv6 so hard because IPv4 just can’t expand enough to fulfill our needs. And not just Internet of Things, your light bulb needs to be online, that sort of silliness. IPv4 can’t expand enough to raise each community and each organization to a current first-world level of Internet usage.
Want to build a Chinese Facebook? Can’t get enough IPv4 address space for all the servers. Want to build Facebook in America, can’t get enough IPv4 address space for all the servers.[1] Vint Cerf doesn’t need to be employed by Google to say that IPv4 just wasn’t intended for the Internet of 2015. He made IPv4. He knows.[2]
Using your MAC address for your IPv6 host address is now obsolete. Privacy Extensions[3] are the current best practice. IPv6 address space is so astonishingly vast, that it’s possible though not common to have a separate IP address for each host you would want to contact during a single session. IPv6 is not inherently less private than IPv4.
You are wrong and don't understand how IPv6 works. With privacy extensions, hosts frequently regenerate their interface IDs, making IPv6 addresses no better at uniquely identifying hosts than the TCP port number does with NATed IPv4 connections.
If IPv6 becomes widely deployed, it would make a more decentralized, peer-to-peer Internet possible, and make it easier for small companies to compete with large megacorps like Google. If Google were truly as selfish as you imply, they would oppose IPv6 - a future where IP addresses are difficult to obtain unless you have deep pockets only benefits companies like Google.
