[otabdeveloper4]

No, NAT is not for network address shortages.

NAT is a cruicial privacy and security feature.

"No need to use NAT" is, of course, a horrible anti-feature, not a benefit of IPv6. (And, of course, in the real world the vast majority of IPv6 is rolled out with NAT anyways.)

[keiyakins]

NAT is neither a privacy nor security feature, what are you talking about? Have you actually tested what your CPE does when it gets packets addressed to internal IPs from the WAN port? Almost every time, the answer is just pass it on to the target host. Thinking NAT is a security feature makes your network MUCH less secure.

As for privacy - you can fingerprint individual devices pretty trivially, and with privacy extensions for SLAAC you can only tell what /64 network it's coming from, which is no more information than IPv4 (unless you're behind CGNAT, but frankly being behind a 4-to-4 CGNAT shouldn't count as internet access because you literally can't get incoming connections.)

[Dagger2]

Having enough address space to not need to NAT is hardly an anti-feature.

I don't have any hard stats, but NAT seems to be very rare in v6 deployments. You don't really hear of ISPs using it. I'm certain you could find some if you looked hard enough, but mostly it's not a thing.

[preisschild]

NAT was never intended for security and privacy.

IPv6 security is like IPv4 security: Firewalls

For privacy IPv6 uses Security Extensions, which shuffles your ipv6 ip.