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.
and, if we can make v6 very attractive (left as exercise to student) then
its success may relieve some perceived need for nats. but there are far
more useful goals to achieve by making it attractive and deployed. and we
should focus on them, not the anti-nat obsession.
[ unless, of course, we think that there is enough left of our foot to
keep shooting at it. ]
randy