This in turn means that symmetric NAT will be considered sort of broken, which it should be as it is horrible for anything P2P or any novel protocol for that matter. Of course IPv6 is the ultimate long term solution.
I feel like this is similar to
"We'll have nuclear fusion in the next 30 years."
:)
However if you look at the graph from google - https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html
maybe it'll be here sooner than we think...
ITER is huge and fabulously expensive, but it's intended to be more of an experiment/testbed that happens to maybe generate some power. It's not intended to be a practical reactor.
This student didn't understand that it was possible for one device to talk to another device directly.
To move to true P2P for WebRTC seems impossible, as even if 80% of web users were on IPv6 without NAT (and even 80% seems a bit hopeless at this point considering we've been transitioning to IPv6 for 20 years now), you'd still need a fallback configuration for the 20% that don't. There doesn't seem to be a feasible gradual transition strategy.
This is not really my area of expertise, so I'd love to be proven wrong.
Many providers choose to use SFU's even when not needed because they have features like recording that require it. I've gotten much better quality and latency on normal webrtc than I have over slack, teams, hangouts, even over bad mobile networks.