Agreed. But since all the regexes in threads dealt only IPv4; it was worth mentioning.

That said, with currently less 0.5% of traffic using IPv6, and the whole raft of other issues from hardware & software incompatibilities; to wide-open, untested security; to privacy issues, I think we are destined to see all but the largest of organisations ignoring the existence of IPv6 for the foreseeable future.

There's also a school of thought that rather than viewing the use of NAT as abuse, that simply extending its use to the highest level (backbone) ISPs, and having them hand back huge rafts of their currently allocations, would solve the problems far more simply and cheaply than moving to IPv6.

With only one level NAT you potentially get 16 quadrillion addresses. Sure, it's not as many as IPv6's 3.4x1038, but that's just ludicrous overkill.