[address-policy-wg] Mandating NAT toward the final /8

Masataka Ohta wrote:
> I have written an Internet Draft to explain end to end NAT.
> 	http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ohta-e2e-nat-00
>
> You can see the only reason to deploy IPv6 to keep the freedom of
> end to end transparency is now non-exsitent.
>
> So, to keep IPv4 until we are ready with something much better
> than IPv6, why not mandate some form of NAT, legacy, end to
> end or whatever.
>
> 							Masataka Ohta
>
> PS
>
> First thing we should do is to make initial PA allocation /24 and
> reduce the number of IP addresses allocated to an end user by
> 1/256 or so.
>   
Please say you don't really mean this and it's just a joke you're
playing on the Internet community ...
NAT has been a kludge from the beginning, and now you try to "fix" the
low availability of IPv6-capable hardware (which is finally starting to
pick up a bit) by implementing yet another, even worse kludge? And
what's that, "ready with something much better than IPv6"? Heck, it took
much too long for working v6-equipement already, with even large vendors
not having implemented it completely and reliably ... you mean to tell
folks now to flush 10+ years of work down the drain, just because you
have the "miracle cure" against (temporary) IPv4 shortage, and we now
have another 10-20 years until we _REALLY_ run out of IPs? (please check
on the time it usually takes standards committees to pass something like
a new protocol, e.g. how long it took to get IPv6 standardized ...)

Also, I don't see where your E2E really fixes reachability issues that
current NAT has. Sure, it may fix the multiple-port problems of current
NAT (which is already fixed by decent firewalls)
Apart from that, your draft requires changes in both the gateways AND
the applications --- do you honestly believe that _that_ can be
implemented decently before IPv4 exhaustion?

But maybe I'm just too stupid to see the genius behind your proposal ...

-garry