This answer is what every argument about IPv6 and NAT boils down to: they say "NAT" but really mean "firewall". In my opinion, using NAT for IPv6 networks is just a false sense of security to make you think LAN nodes are more protected because their address numbers look different, when all you're really trying to say is "don't route to this node from outside".
why it would be a 'false' sense of security if it's not exposed? I don't seem to get it as 'security through obscurity' at all. sincere question, I'm not a network guy.
