If you ever made a call online your latency has been impacted because we can't reliably establish connections between end users and have to proxy the calls through the (hopefully close) DC. The services are also more expensive for you, because they have to account for that traffic.
This impacts you whether you are behind a NAT or not.
If you are behind CGNAT, you're going to get more captchas and likely get occasionally ratelimited, because someone is bound to misbehave, or the aggregate of that traffic from a small IP range will look like an attack at some point.
Places that require calls to be recorded securely will need non p2p still.
And privacy conscious users are screwed either approach (p2p/centralised) if they want to hide their IP.
For developing countries where such equipment can be costly and unscalable it does matter.
Like, I fully understand that they would be feeling much more pressure to migrate, but I don't see that this pressure working; and if even they aren't pushed to IPv6 then why would the western world do so?
The allocation of ipv4 addresses are not fair. These developing Countries deserve the right to host and develop their own tech industries.
Already India is mandating the use of ipv6 by the end of the year.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/...
China too
http://www.cac.gov.cn/2021-07/23/c_1628629122784001.htm
The rest of the world should enable ipv6 if they wish to easily capture this growing market.
TLS solved a problem that affected everyone, that end users didn’t understand. The ranking incentive made sense.
IPv6 honestly doesn’t really solve a problem for anyone. The people who can’t deal with CGNAT or have other problems are a tiny minority, and they have solutions to those problems.
The other benefits of IPv6 create more headaches than they solve. Why would you roll the dice and take outages to eliminate IPv4?