No it wouldn't. Basically all mobile networks would break and have to do even more layers of NAT to meet demand.

> IPv6 does not do anything to save the planet.

The world doesn't have enough IPV4 addresses. It literally solves the problem. It is crazy to me so many people here are arguing for multileveled NAT instead of the obvious solution we have had for 20 years.

I don't think EUI-64 being built into link-local fe80 addresses is a privacy issue. Link-local addresses don't get routed, so nothing outside of that network will see or know about them. As far as the router itself, e.g. your ISPs router, it can already gather MAC addresses if it wanted to, so IPv6 using the MAC to generate link-local addresses doesn't add or remove to that situation.

CGNAT is not the Internet working well. CGNAT makes you have to have your ISPs permission and coordination to originate outgoing traffic--imagine if you had to ask the power company for permission to operate each electrical device in your house.

Some are... China, India, Israel all mandate IPv6 support from ISPs in their territory and the equipment they provide to users, as do some others.

The US has mandated IPv6 support for federal contracts since 2009, although they don't get involved outside of those directly providing services to the government itself. They now have plans to go IPv6-only, and eliminate the use of legacy IP within the federal government.

Allocation of legacy address space was always based on first come first served, so developed countries got the lions share of address space and left developing countries with scraps. This creates a severe inequality, and holds developing countries back. This is also why India and China are leading, as they have a huge disparity between their population and the number of legacy addresses available.