[Veserv]

1. IPv6 does have NAT [1], NAT66.

2. NAT is totally orthogonal to IP and addressing.

3. NAT (as in transparent packet modification to rewrite addresses) is utterly idiotic. Ephemeral, anonymous address allocation with inbound filtering is smart, but transparently rewriting packets to do that is one of the dumbest possible ways prone to horrible compatibility and ossification issues as has been proven empirically.

[1] https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-mrw-nat66-00.html

[djha-skin]

Are you a network engineer?

[vel0city]

A network engineer would know how to NAT in IPv6, and wouldn't say an untrue statement like "there is no ability to NAT with IPv6".

[djha-skin]

Are you a network engineer?

[vel0city]

I wouldn't advertise my title as "network engineer" but having a strong understanding networking and network design has been a big part of my jobs for the last 20 years or so.

[Veserv]

I engineer and design network device drivers and network protocol stacks.

NAT is a terrible network protocol. The correct protocol would have been a DHCP extension giving you a 49-bit address where your IPv4 address constitutes a /32 with a 17-bit unique local address.

[djha-skin]

Fascinating. Would love to know more if you have a link.