IPv6 does not solve the need to renumber if you change providers (and no,
not everyone can be a provider -- IPv6 uses CIDR, just like IPv4). Until
that issue is addressed, there will be NATs. Even for v6.
I don't think so - first, because IPv6 has more hooks for renumbering
than v4 (though more work is needed);
If end users are required to modify configuration files, you will see NAT
so they don't have to.
not if the NATs cause more pain than modifying the config files.
and second, because a lot of folks
will want to use IPv6 precisely because they need to avoid NAT breakage.
Technogeeks, perhaps. The vast majority of people on the Internet who are
behind NATs most likely don't even know it.
I presume that "technogeeks" includes networking professionals who can't
make their B2B applications work reliably over NATs?
there are two major classes of NAT users: (1) home users of "internet
connection sharing" and (2) businesses using NATs to connect private
networks to the Internet and to one another. both groups are generally
aware that the NATs exist, though the home users might not use the term
NAT to describe them and might not be as well versed in how they function.
it's hardly surprising that professional network administrators are more
likely than the average home user to understand the limitations of NATs,
and the home user is often less demanding - the casual home user who just
wants to be able to browse the web at the same time as the kids might never
notice the difference. but overall, both kinds of users are learning that
the presence of a NAT causes some things to break, just as people once had
to learn that rewriting of email addresses across gateways caused things
a significant percentage of the folks who will drive v6 deployment will
be those who have learned about those problems the hard way and are in
need of a real solution. they won't be fooled again.