I immediately thought of this line from my favorite episode of Everybody Love Raymond. Ray's dad says: "Didn't I teach you anything, you gotta problem with your woman you don't go out and get another one. Then you got two problems."
That episode aired in 2001. I wonder if the NAT quote is inspired by that?
My understanding of BGP is that it’s so old (and was relatively well designed) that it could now be considered an arcane magic once widespread but now only known by some old wizards.
The problem with both is that they were both designed long ago, without much regard to bad actors. They have been around so long replacing would be a herculean effort.
Would answer "I use it host servers at home and have load-balanced access to internet via several end-users ISPs(no BGP sessions with ISPs so 2 VPN tunnels from home to server + 2 BGP sessions from home to said server via tunnels and server itself have session with it's ISP) count?" :)
Would "I'm just getting lists of IPs blocked by local censorship authority/IPs which are better to access via IP from OTHER country to put them all in VPN" count? :)
p.s.
I'm not network admin and never put "BGP" on resume.
Can't tell whether this is trolling or serious. Breaking the end-to-end principle has had profound effects on the Internet as a whole for the last 2 decades, centralization being the most obvious one.
Citation needed on "breaking privacy". You have at least 2^64 IPv6 addresses per household, cycle through them and stop worrying about IP tracking.
Oh, and I can give citation on how NAT breaks something. Until the day we can magically remove application-level gateways[0] I consider NAT a fundamentally broken hack.
(Just in case you don't recognize the allusion:
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/05/what-...