Exactly. That is why 6to4 came out the way it did - it offers a way
for a NATted IPv4 site to introduce non-NATted IPv6 without losing
anything or throwing away anything.
There are RFCs explaining the issues with NAT technically and objectively.
I don't see why this generates comments about anti-NAT religion.
It's obvious when you read those RFCs and think about P2P computing
that NAT is a problem. If we don't avoid that problem in IPv6
we will have failed as engineers.
Bernard Aboba wrote:
i suggest that, for most of us, there are more useful and concrete major
direct goals of ipv6 than anti-nat religion.
And in fact, the anti-NAT religion hurts deployment of IPv6
because it is hard to get customers to throw away things
they have already bought.
I would also suggest that the rapidity at which NAT is
being deployed for IPv4 suggests that we need to think about
how to deploy IPv6 in an environment where IPv4 NATs are prevalent.
Thus, it is unlikely that IPv6 will displace IPv4 NATs; tather
it will augment them.