If I use a global unicast prefix, the IPs I see on my devices are their real honest to goodness routable IP. That is great!
But I can’t use that IP in any configuration because it will change. That’s not so great.
So I have to compromise by not using the routable IP in places where I need to put the address in a config file.
Nobody wants ULA. ULA is a solution for the fact that your prefix will change, which I wish didn’t happen.
You can say it’s unreasonable to expect a stable prefix (and we could argue about that all day) but don’t pretend it wouldn’t be massively beneficial if I could rely on one. It is absolutely a compromise. A necessary one? Yes. A reasonably simple solution to implement? Yes. But it’s still a compromise.
> don’t pretend it wouldn’t be massively beneficial
It would be barely beneficial to me.
I don't want to memorize my global prefix anyway.
And yeah, folks need to understand that ULA addresses are functionally equivalent to RFC 1918 addresses, and ask themselves why they'd expect an ISP who charges extra for an unchanging globally-routable IPv4 address to give you an unchanging globally-routable IPv6 prefix for free.
That's not the same for not changing an ipv6 address
Over the last several decades of me having residential Internet service from a variety of ISPs here in the US, I've never had an IPv4 address that was not globally-accessible. Relatedly, I've never had a guaranteed-static IPv4 address, but I COULD get one if I paid the ISP additional money.
I understand that in other regions of the world NOT being behind CGN is not guaranteed.
> That's not the same for not changing an ipv6 address
Hopefully you now understand the context in which I made my remarks. In the world that I (and many other folks) live in, I get one globally-accessible, but definitely-not-static IPv4 address.