A counterpoint is that by cycling through IPv6 addresses no one can ever tell who is who by addresses alone. Okay, they could probably tell from the IPv6 prefix because the entire company/household shares it, but people used to ("use to" if you live in a Western country, probably) share the same public IPv4 address too so I find that point rather moot.

Another very strong counterpoint to this is that, you can't really build a truly-P2P network nor self-host a service on Internet, when everyone is behind CGNAT. At some point, as IPv4 resources get scarcer, only corporates will have the ability to host services on the Internet, and I don't think it is in their interests to host Tor nodes, for example...

> Which is an advantage from an anti-tracking perspective

Depends. It makes it harder for someone outside your ISP to track you, but it makes it easier for your ISP to track you, and harder for them to justify not keeping logs of where you've connected to (since that data is necessary for their CGNAT system to work).

You get a new IPv6 address very quickly (mostly every day or every week). That makes tracking difficult too. While the prefix is mostly stable, that is akin to the public CGNAT address.

It's not really, since an IPv6 /64 prefix has one customer behind it while a CGNAT has N customers.

I mean people are just going to log into their gmail account in their chrome browser and it doesn’t matter if you change IP’s every single minute, that identity isn’t changing as often and the relevant information Google wants will be tracked.