IP over NAT is, in no way, end-to-end.
WAP and IP over NAT are equally bad.
I think you're overstating your case. Yes, IP over NAT is bad, but
it's nowhere near as bad as WAP. I don't meant to defend NAT, but
many/most existing Internet protocols and applications do work over it
with few if any fixes. Sprint PCS uses a NAT, but I'm still able to
plug my Linux laptop into my Qualcomm phone and do pretty much
everything I want -- download and send mail, login to home with SSH,
check a few web pages, etc. If all I had is WAP, I'd be stuck.
If you want, it is still possible to "reconstruct" a true end-to-end
IP service by tunneling it through a NAT with something vaguely
resembling mobile IP. Such a scheme would probably use UDP or TCP as
its encapsulation wrapper so the NAT would have port numbers to keep
it happy, and it would require a cooperating tunnel at the far end
with "real" IP addresses it can hand out. Ugly, yes. But it would
work, and if this became widespread enough it might even convince the
carriers to reform their ways. (I can dream, can't I?)
In the meantime, I see a growing business opportunity here for
companies wishing to provide such VPN/tunnel endpoint services for
those who don't want to set up local NATs to hang multiple computers
off their one-IP-address-per-user dialup, DSL or cable ISPs, or who
don't want to deal with their carriers' ever-changing dynamic IP
address assignments. This would also be a good way to bootstrap your
way to IPv6 when your local ISP isn't interested.
Phil