> ISPs will still need those IPv4 addresses, no matter how much they cost. ISPs may delay by deploying CGNAT, but once those IPv4 addresses run out there is no

> ISPs will still need those IPv4 addresses, no matter how much they cost. ISPs may delay by deploying CGNAT, but once those IPv4 addresses run out there is no other option than to get out your checkbook or scale back your business. Yes, that's what I'm saying. At some point going IPv6-only and paying for (CG)NAT64 may be cheaper than trying to buy more and more IPv4 addresses. ISPs would already have IPv4 addresses, but they'd simply use them for reaching the 'legacy' Internet, and they wouldn't be assigned to people's routers WAN interface. > Likewise with hosters. There is no choice but to use IPv4, damn the cost. It will probably not be the hosting company paying for the IPv4, but rather it will be the end customer, and they may not want to pay. The first address may be free, but if you want multiple, then you could be charged for the 'extra' ones. Depending on the number of public services needed, some people may find it cheaper to use the IPv4 address(es) on the front-end of a load balancer and have their actual system be IPv6.