1. IPv4 scarcity and cost push users toward NAT/CGNAT
- “In regions where IPv4 addresses are scarce, you may not even have a single public IPv4 address. I’m fortunate to have one, but still needs NAT.” – Sha1rholder
- “My ISP will rent me a single IPv4 address for $10 per month.” – litoE
2. NAT is often confused with a security feature, but it merely translates addresses; real protection requires firewalls
- “NAT and firewalls are separate concepts. You can also have NAT with no meaningful firewall – a port remapping NAT that allows anything through.” – api
- “NAT only serves as the janky inbound default deny because IPv4 doesn’t have the address space.” – unethical_ban
3. IPv6 is viewed as the long‑term fix, yet adoption is hampered by firewall needs, privacy‑address complexities, and inertia
- “IPv6… takes the concept of a MAC address and puts it on steroids… a hyper‑connected, shared infrastructure where [Layer 3] identity is universally unique…” – sedivy94
- “I’ll believe it when I see it. So far it doesn’t look like IPv6 will win anytime soon.” – eru
- “It brings the requirement for a firewall on every endpoint with a unique address.” – teekert