Very nice and simple answer. You make a good trainer 
Wish I could attend but alas for just my personal use at home its hard to justify the expense in these difficult economic times. I am sure however there are lots of pros here who will attend as it would be great to hear from someone who has done this in production environments.
So without a router to do DHCPv6 DP then a XP machine would need to have a client installed by either the customer or the ISP. There are a lot of XP machines out there too.
Security concerns. It seems to me that this shift to IPv6 might be a security risk for client devices and for home networks run by the average user.. Right now your typical home user has NAT and this shields all their devices from direct exposure to the net. Placing every machine the client has directly facing the net via a switch will require each device to have a firewall with its configuration complexities. For example if a printer wants to talk to a computer then the firewall needs to allow only addresses in that prefix for the client. The firewall will need to do all this automagically for most clients. The home is now starting to fill with internet appliances like TV’s, AV Receivers, ipods/pads, wifi phones, refrigerators, VOIP, cameras and a ever growing list. Each device will need its own firewall and DHCPv6 with all the complexities involved in getting that config right. This all being in the hands of completely inexperienced users.
The other serious issue i could see is that each device will have zero-day exploit potential. Inexpensive devices are sure to have holes. Once compromised the device has access inside the firewall as it would be a trusted address by the other devices in the prefix and so you have a compromised network and your machines are exposed.
So it would seem to me that a perimeter firewall is absolutely mandatory. Further NAT seems to have appeal to me as it would auto-magically shield all these devices. I suppose good firewall rules would be ok without the need for NAT but I would think for your average user NAT is more secure as it would require zero config and would isolate all the devices.
IPv6 has challenges for home users. I see a less secure network unless something is done. Its impossible to rely on a automagic firewall in a $50 camera to protect your network. You cannot expect a client to do anything but plug in a device. Look at unsecured wifi, clients still dont secure them.
This is bound to be a issue for a ISP. Not only in support requests because something does not work, but because of the possible increases in compromised devices and the bandwidth they take up.
These all seem like interesting issues to me. There sure is a place for a router with a good firewall in the future. There is also a place for good training so the support people and engineers know all this stuff.
I think I want NAT and a DHCPv6 server hehehe…
So MT, p l e a s e lets add DHCPv6 DP sooner then later I want to play with all this stuff now.
