> So it is in fact a big problem for CG-NATs. Only if they're under provisioned. If my home really needed tens of thousands I'd provision another ipv4 address,

> So it is in fact a big problem for CG-NATs. Only if they're under provisioned. If my home really needed tens of thousands I'd provision another ipv4 address, but it doesn't -- at the moment I have a mere 121 active connections in my firewall. The cost of a firewall is far more than the cost of an ipv4 address, which are available for about $20 each. > Having global addressing is also just useful in and of itself, even without global reachability. Except that doesn't happen, as most locations will not be BGP peering and advertising their own /48 (routing tables would melt) Instead if you change your ISP, you change your IP address. Unless you use private ips in the fc00:: range, which is no different to using rfc1918 addresses for the vast majority of users