That works for one ISP, the issue is with two (a common design for SMB network reliability). Earlier recommendations I read were "get your own public /48 assigned and peer with both, NAT including NPT is not good". But it turns out some (all?) authorities won't do that for SMBs, so we're back to some form of translation, probably on top of ULAs running internally.
Another related issue is the ULA design - they're meant to be randomly generated but it's not enforced, so you just know there'll be a bunch of internal networks with custom duplicate ULAs that will only show up when some businesses merge, so we'll be back to re-ipaddressing subnets.
IPv6 has changed a bit since the first RFCs (privacy extensions etc) so I imagine at some point someone will look at this and make some changes to suit. I wonder if it'll be relaxing ULA recommendations or adding something else entirely.
I'm insanely excited for never having to worry about subnet size again but it just doesn't seem like there's a clear best-practice one-true-way everyone-agrees way forward right now for a whole bunch of popular use-cases.
Another related issue is the ULA design - they're meant to be randomly generated but it's not enforced, so you just know there'll be a bunch of internal networks with custom duplicate ULAs that will only show up when some businesses merge, so we'll be back to re-ipaddressing subnets.
IPv6 has changed a bit since the first RFCs (privacy extensions etc) so I imagine at some point someone will look at this and make some changes to suit. I wonder if it'll be relaxing ULA recommendations or adding something else entirely.
I'm insanely excited for never having to worry about subnet size again but it just doesn't seem like there's a clear best-practice one-true-way everyone-agrees way forward right now for a whole bunch of popular use-cases.