You want portable /56s?
You realise that's incredibly expensive for everybody else right? Today's portable /24s are a considerable burden, and you'd like to have far smaller routes assigned for basically your personal convenience. I don't know for sure what it would cost, but certainly thousands of dollars per year each seems like a very modest estimate.
But consider: (1) that for ages the route table growth has been slow due to v4 shortage, and router memory has kept getting cheaper on the normal memory cost curve for this plateau phase in history, and (2) Consumer ISPs have been abusing this and making prefixes jump around even on CPE reboots, instead of having them stable for months and years like is the design, and (3) mechanisms to smooth out renumbering haven't been deployed because ISPs have gotten away with doing [2] without any mitigations.
The 'net infra could probably afford to start giving many more people portable blocks, and it would be only fair that ISPs would have to pay a bit for their sins regarding [2], and to this would add incentives to do [3].
And also, in absolute terms it's currently tiny, ~ 2 M routes that can be represented in a couple of addrs worth of space each in line card memory when deciding just which interface to forward, and keeping in mind that only core routers that don't outsource transit to other upstream telcos have a need to keep this in memory.
Is it simply that you don't understand why it's incredibly expensive? It means everybody who does network routing has to buy extra hardware to track all this useless noise you've decided ought to be "free", that hardware costs money.
Your ISP choosing to charge you for stuff that doesn't cost them anything is completely separate. I would say "Choose an ISP which isn't shit" but you're probably American and have no such choice. Too bad?
But in the general case, for a customer who is just using the Internet from the same place as last time, there's no benefit to changing their IP addresses and clearly there's no reason static addressing shouldn't be free, it's just like one database entry for them to do it.
I could imagine them explaining OK, you get static BUT it might change if you move home or something, and that feels pretty acceptable to me.
For what it's worth I get static IPv6 and IPv4 (although of course the IPv4 is a tiny block, only a /27 IIRC whereas I have a /48 of IPv6) but I'm in the UK and with a specialist ISP that cares a lot about this stuff.
Even some of the large ISPs can get it right. I used to have fiber optic service from a large telephone company (starts with "C" ends in "EnturyLink") and could use their account management portal to go and get anything up to a /26, complete with setting up reverse DNS, just by clicking a button and agreeing to a relative pittance of money. I think the /26 was $40 per month and the /28 I had was $10 a couple of years ago. They would give me a static IPv6 /48 for nothing, just a click, and delegate the reverse DNS zone to me. A /56 that was supposedly dynamic but never actually changed was given by default.
The problem seems to be which ISPs want to do what. ISPs run by phone companies seem to think of their networks, and the customer networks attached to them, as actual internetworked networks. ISPs run by video companies seem to think of their networks as extensions of distribution systems for linear television channels.
The more ASes that exist, the more routes need to be propagated. If every household were theoretically assigned a network that they could take with them anywhere, and advertise, a well-connected router would have millions and millions of routes to track and forward.
One of the goals of IPv6 was to make the Internet more hierarchical to avoid this.
I agree with your point. I should be able to get a static PD from my ISP (a /56 or /60 easily) and that should stay the same for all time, given a MAC address. In other words, PD should be stateful.
I have thought about setting up my LAN with "Unique Local Addresses" and doing NAT66 if I can ever manage to get a public IPV6 address from my ISP.
I'm not really sure how much each of these types of memory cost, but I did find [1] which says "The cost of TCAM is also about 30 times more per bit of storage than SRAM". That suggests a CPU with something more like 0.5-1 GB of L3 cache would be a closer comparison.
[1] https://research.ijcaonline.org/volume115/number7/pxc3902299...