What are you even basing that on? Here are some facts:

- You have to pay money to get a static IPv4 address for cloud machines on eg AWS. Anything needing a static IPv4 will cost more and more as demand increases. NAT doesn’t exactly fix that.

- Mainstream IoT protocols have a hard dependency on IPv6 (eg Matter/Thread). Not to mention plenty of 5g deployments.

- Many modern networks quietly use IPv6 internally. I mean routing is simpler without NAT.

So it almost definitely won’t die. It’s more likely it’ll slowly and quietly continue growing behind the scenes, even if consumers are still seeing IPv4 on their home networks.

▲

hdgvhicv an hour ago | parent | next [-]

IPv4 addresses have been dropping in price for a few years and are cheaper in real terms than at my point in the last 15

	▲	throw0101a 19 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> IPv4 addresses have been dropping in price for a few years and are cheaper in real terms than at my point in the last 15 More IPv6 deployments may (ironically?) help reduce IPv4 prices as you can get IPv6 'for free' and have Internet connectivity (and not have to worry about exhaustion in any practical way). Doing CG-NAT could reduce the number IPv4 addresses you need to acquire.

▲

cyberax an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Matter/Thread use private IPv6 addresses so it's just an implementation detail. Nobody is exposing light switches to the public Internet.