Well, okay. > Irrelevant. It's paramount that LAN operators should have tools for configuring LAN routing policies properly. It so happens that NAT is the tool

Well, okay. > Irrelevant. It's paramount that LAN operators should have tools for configuring LAN routing policies properly. It so happens that NAT is the tool usually used for this. No, it is absolutely relevant. There is no “routing policies” enforced by NAT whatsoever. NAT has nothing to do with routing, it’s literally the address translation mechanism. Routing doesn’t change whether you’re using NAT or assigning addresses to devices within LAN from the provider’s network or your own PI range. There’s no “routing issue” in either case, the only meaningful difference is the LAN address range. The only issue I can think of is using the provider’s range for LAN addressing - it will be unnecessary difficult to use multiple uplinks in this case. And having to renumber your network in case of provider change also quite a disadvantage. PI addresses and BGP peering with uplinks would be the right solution in this case (and getting your own v6 subnet is currently trivial). > That is literally insane, like I said. People who propose this should be banned from ever doing IT again. This is an amazing argument, thank you for that, I have immediately changed my mind after reading it. Also check the address of the cellular interface of your mobile, chances are it is in fact global, despite of your disagreement.