In the real world, addresses are an abstraction to provide knowledge needed to move something from point A to point B. We could use coordinates or refer to the exact office the recipient sits in, but we don’t. Actually, we usually try to keep it at a fairly high level of abstraction.

The analogy is broken, because in the real world, we don’t want extremely exact addressing and transport without middlemen. We want abstract addresses, with transport routing partially to fully decoupled from the addressing scheme. GP provides a nice argument for IPv4.

I know how NAT works, but we are working within the constraints of a very broken analogy here. Also yes, internal logistics can and will be the harbinger of unnecessary bureaucracy, especially when implemented correctly.