I am a blue collar layperson (who only understands IPv4's limitation as a lack of total available IP addresses) that disables IPv6 (at the router level) for this exact reason — I feel like I am losing the little bit of control that being "behind NAT" allows on a private IP range/network (e.g. firewall; port mapping).
Obviously I still use Windows 7 Pro 64-bit as my only Microsoft computer — also have an Ubuntu dual Xeon (for LLM/crypto) and several Apple Silicon products (for general browsing).
You're misunderstanding the purpose of NAT, which is not a security boundary. Apple, for instance, has (or had) nearly all of their workstations on a public IP space.
You can still equally as effectively firewall and port map devices on public IPs as you can behind NAT -- and actually just a bit easier, since you're taking NAT out of the picture.
Do you have a gateway that doesn't do ipv6 firewalling (e.g. allow outgoing, only allow established incoming)? I was under the impression that even no-names manage to get that correct. Why would you need port mapping if not for NAT? Even with NAT, for home use I was always mapping port n to n.
