> NAT has not stopped it to happen.
I never said that it does. But do you care about increased latency, decreased throughput, more centralised points of failure? If so, then you should prefer avoidin...
"This would not happen in an IPV6 context, because the offended service can simply block traffic from the particular subnet. In other words, with IPV6 rather than NAT/ CGNAT, endpoints can distinguish different households and users"
That's the point: NAT allows "mixing users behind a common IP".
If you can not be distinguished from other users, that's privacy.
That's the point: NAT allows "mixing users behind a common IP".
If you can not be distinguished from other users, that's privacy.