From earlier in this thread "NAT literally breaks IP". NAT is a workaround. Yes, it's our solution to IPv4 shortage in light of not being able to force the world over to IPv6, but it's not ideal.

CGNAT will hopefully drive people to IPv6 because it's really quite bad. This talk is really interesting in explaining why it's so bad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbk4H6EmZzI

Edit: Changed likely to hopefully... as let's be honest, we'll probably still be using IPv4 in a few decades.

If this is your take, why are you replying to me?

I'm not arguing there is (or isn't) a shortage, I'm pushing back on a point premised on the existence of a shortage. Go reply to that other guy.

Your point seems to be that a shortage is not possible because carrier grade NAT. I'd argue that the deployment of carrier grade NAT is proof that one is actively in existence.

True, but more often than not you don't have a choice.