> Even if it was static changing the ISP will result in a new public range, meaning an internal re number, unless you use NAT, in which case you may as well use ipv4 and nat.
Kind of: if you use IPv6's ULA (fc00/7 [1]), then you can have a NAT-like translation layer using NPTv6 [2]. The advantage of NTPv6 over NAT44 is that you get an entire prefix to play with instead of a single IP on your router's WAN interface.
If you wish to have multiple services (web, SSH, Minecraft), then with IPv4 hole punching you can only have one server on the default port and the second system with the same service needs to be on a different port. With IPv6/NPTv6 you can have each service on a different IPv6 address and live on its default port.
You also have the flexibility of either only allowing one particular port in for that service/IPv6 address, or just allowing all traffic in without any firewalling/filtering.
So NPTv6 is no worse than NAT44 in the simple cases, but also has extra functionality over it.
Kind of: if you use IPv6's ULA (fc00/7 [1]), then you can have a NAT-like translation layer using NPTv6 [2]. The advantage of NTPv6 over NAT44 is that you get an entire prefix to play with instead of a single IP on your router's WAN interface.
If you wish to have multiple services (web, SSH, Minecraft), then with IPv4 hole punching you can only have one server on the default port and the second system with the same service needs to be on a different port. With IPv6/NPTv6 you can have each service on a different IPv6 address and live on its default port.
You also have the flexibility of either only allowing one particular port in for that service/IPv6 address, or just allowing all traffic in without any firewalling/filtering.
So NPTv6 is no worse than NAT44 in the simple cases, but also has extra functionality over it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unique_local_address
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6-to-IPv6_Network_Prefix_Tr...