The latency comes because it seems services fall back to a server reroute for a media stream for example if you have a double nat situation they can't get through to route directly. It's not the NAT, its the approaches used to work around the NAT. This hits particularly hard with IPv6 (ie, the fallback will be a server that does next leg IPv4 if needed).
We hear that IPv6 has more IPs than people. Great. It should be easier, not harder, to get a block of these IPs.
ISPs don't want to hand out static blocks.
Static RIR allocations also poor and in some ways harder than it was to get IPv4 allocations early on (Have 13 end sites (offices, data centers, etc.) within one year or 2000 devices etc) or go to IPv6 multi-homing.
The limiting factor in some of this is not IP address quantity but routing complexity - I understand why they may want to limit things from that side, but it limits the utility of the space.
And all of it is harder to configure and operate for most folks. Sure, Google was maybe all in on IPv6 for google cloud from the start, but they have crazy money - and even for them I'm sure it was a pain and a big lift to offer that as a service to their GCP customers 15 years ago.
For the average person -> it's still not that good.
Note: I'm kidding about google and their rockstars delivering IPv6 early on. It was as painful for them with all their experts as everyone else - which tells you something.
One clear pain point, ISPs not giving out static IP's (v6). So what's point of huge space?
The routing path is the same regardless if you do NAT on your internet edge or not and there is no double mat in the case of IPv6, perhaps v4 if your carrier was doing cgnat due to address exhaustion.
The benefit and aim of the large space is that all devices can get unique public IPs not that all devices can get static public IPs. This prevents the need for cgnat on the carrier side which creates all sorts of problems and even prevents the need for complex NAT punching for user p2p such as games or real time communications. It also prevents the need for paying millions of dollars just to have IPs to serve one town due to scarcity from a small numeric field.
I'm not sure what is more difficult about getting a /48 from your RIR today than was getting a /16 in the early 90s, in each case you just register and say "I've got a business using IP" and are approved. I've never been denied, even for my personal LLC. I even had 0 pushback getting a /32 assigned for a large org I worked for 2 years ago - that's an entire IPv4 worth of /64 prefixes assigned without question or selling a kidney like on IPv4. I've also never had trouble registering dozens of businesses for static IPv6 blocks from their carriers for when they didn't want to manage the internet handoff.
For the average person they don't know what a vlan is or a static address or what IPv6 is for that matter, and they don't need to, which is what is so great about IPv6. For those that do know what VLANs are PD is great and comes out of the box on every ISP for $0 instead of paying them for more public addresses like in v4. For businesses static handoffs really are 0 difference to arrange from the old.
Google was amazing with the V6 efforts early on but GCP was God awful. In fact to this day it still requires dual stacking GCP VMs on the internal side otherwise everything breaks and you can't access GCP APIs via v6. Both Azure and AWS have been light years and decades ahead of GCP on the V6 front.
As for AT&T being a general money sucking PITA to deal with yes, they are generally recognized as the worst large ISP to deal with and will make you want to pull your hair out. They won't do it with U-verse they'll push you to ATT business fiber, charge an arm and a leg, and take 6 months to do it. Again though your beef is with ATT's business offerings not anything to do with IPv6, there is nothing stopping them from doing the same thing they do on consumer IPv4 connections they just choose not to.
We hear that IPv6 has more IPs than people. Great. It should be easier, not harder, to get a block of these IPs.
ISPs don't want to hand out static blocks.
Static RIR allocations also poor and in some ways harder than it was to get IPv4 allocations early on (Have 13 end sites (offices, data centers, etc.) within one year or 2000 devices etc) or go to IPv6 multi-homing.
The limiting factor in some of this is not IP address quantity but routing complexity - I understand why they may want to limit things from that side, but it limits the utility of the space.
And all of it is harder to configure and operate for most folks. Sure, Google was maybe all in on IPv6 for google cloud from the start, but they have crazy money - and even for them I'm sure it was a pain and a big lift to offer that as a service to their GCP customers 15 years ago.
For the average person -> it's still not that good.
Note: I'm kidding about google and their rockstars delivering IPv6 early on. It was as painful for them with all their experts as everyone else - which tells you something.
One clear pain point, ISPs not giving out static IP's (v6). So what's point of huge space?
Att IPv4 info
https://www.att.com/support/article/u-verse-high-speed-inter...
Comcast Static is $25/month for 5 (business connection)
etc