Maybe it's too late so my brain got foggy, however between these two
(1) keeping user packets intact as they transit through the
(2) applications using address for referral
I do not see that (2) is a consequence of (1), as you seem to believe.
I was actually making a different statement. I was saying that
end-to-end (locator/address) transparency is important in the existing
Internet because IP addresses are overloaded as identifiers by some
applications. If there wasn't this kind of overloading, then the lack
of end-to-end (locator/address) transparency would be less of an issue.
Another clarification: I am surprised that you say I would justify IPv6
NAT. As I said in my posts, NAT does introduce issues simply because
the existing overloading of IP addresses as locators and identifiers
works best if IP addresses are carried unchanged by the network.
Whether these issues are worth the benefits of NATs is something that
requires a separate discussion.
Ietf mailing list