I agree that NAT sucks but IPv6 having two different ways of assigning addresses (SLAAC and DHCPv6) with one of them being practically optional (Android doesn't do DHCPv6 for address assignment) does make IPv6 harder than it needs to be.
Then there are crimes against network protocols like NAT66 that are borderline necessary in some situations because terrible ISPs have decided to dynamically alter IPv6 prefixes so they can charge extra for a static prefix.
I still think NAT makes everything harder than it should be, but I get why some people struggle with IPv6 if their ISP is particularly terrible.
I don't generally care for Android but I'm glad they chose not to support DHCPv6. It's a nice forcing function to make network admins actually learn how SLAAC works and why they should almost certainly prefer it to DHCP.
The sin of IPv6 was trying to do too much. They should have extended address sizes, period. SLAAC and most of the other extensions were a mistake.
Everyone should bomb Android bug reports with complaints about lack of DHCPv6 until they fix it. Then people can de-facto deprecate SLAAC. AFAIK Android is the only major offender here.
Some corporate networks already don't do SLAAC if they don't need Android to work on them.
Indeed. I meant that if evaluating the two de novo, IPv4+NAT is harder.