It's our collective job to ensure that IPv6 doesn't
leave any of the motivations to do NAT intact.
i suggest that, for most of us, there are more useful and concrete major
direct goals of ipv6 than anti-nat religion.
to the extent that anti-NAT is a religion it is because NAT is a religion -
in the sense that it is accepted without question as good and necessary.
for folks who have already accepted NATs as gospel, the only kind of argument
that will get their attention is a religious one. you have to start somewhere.
folks who understand how NATs directly obstruct some of those 'useful
and concrete major direct goals', can stop thinking of "anti-nat" as
a religion and start thinking of a NAT-free network as a sub-goal.
even so, those 'major and concrete direct goals' will differ from one
person to another. my goal is to have an internet that is versatile
enough to support a wide variety of applications - peer-to-peer
and multi-peer applications in particular. others want to make money
by producing a particular kind of product.
many folks who have different 'major and concrete direct goals' might
still have 'anti-nat' as a common sub-goal.
blind acceptance of anti-NAT is no more desirable than blind acceptance
of NAT. especially in this community, people need to *understand*
the implications of each choice.
Keith