With CGNAT becoming more widespread, formats like this might need expansion to include location data for ports. Ie. Port 10,000-20,000 are consumers in New york, port numbers 20000-30000 are in Boston, etc.
IPv4 addresses are not that scarce yet, and realistically any CG-NAT will have several IPv4 addresses per metro area, if only to allow for reasonable levels of geolocation (e.g. to not break the "pizza near me" search use case).
If that had happened, IPv4 would likely already could be regarded as a relic of the past.
It has been a non-existent problem for roughly 20 years now. Why do people still keep pulling out "uniquely identified down to the device" as an argument?
Windows, macOS and most Linux distros by default rotate SLAAC addresses every 24 hours.
We are trying to work with ISPs everywhere, so if port level geolocation of the IP address is common, we surely need to account for that. I will flag this to the data team. To get the ball rolling, I would love to talk to an ISP operator who operates like this. If you know someone please kindly introduce me to them.