CGNAT is not worse any more, IMHO.

with Endpoint-independent-NAT you can accept incoming connections, as soon as you open the port automatically by sending packet to any host. Then any host can start connection to your host? thats perfect for gamers, streamers, webmasters.. etc.. Allows P2P connections..

for server setups, how many common ports you need to forward? five or ten, maybe. not that bad. if it is scripted, then it is automated. if its automated then it is not headache for network administrator..

There are just about 50 major NSP networks on the Earth, that needs to use BGP full-table.

I presume there would be another 50 big ASNs that belong to CDNs. And I am pretty sure those top 100 networks can invest in gear to support /25-/27.

I would suggest Tier3 eyeballs to mark connection depending on incoming interface (transit provider). Then route outgoing traffic of connections via same interface (TP). Thats all they need to do. if they do not optimize BGP based on packetloss rate and latency (performance).

Please Correct me if i am wrong.

Thanks and regards

I presume you mean CGNAT? Otherwise, not sure what EINAT is and couldn’t find

a reference with a quick google search.

Again agree to disagree. NAT is bad and more NAT is just worse.