Ohtasan! Greetings!
Hi, Bob!
It would be a fun debate.
For summer vacation, surely.
Afterall, I can take the blame for the existance of NATs and I really hate them in all shapes and forms.
So, we should avoid IPv6 as its transition plans involve legacy NAT. But, "all shapes and forms"? What's wrong with properly architected IPv4 NAT preserving E2E transparency, through which, unmodified ftp with PORT command, for example, just works? As our operational experiences show that IPv4 NAT provides enough address space for the current wide-spread Internet, we don't need IPv6 or something with 8B address. As for possible further address space extension like your FlexIP, see TCP and UDP with Port Length Enhancement (TUPLE) -- A Scribbled Slate Approach for Internet Addressing and Routing -- https://www.slideserve.com/walden/masataka-ohta-tokyo-institute-of-technology-mohta-necom830-hpcl-titech-ac-jp to have 48 bit port numbers, part of which may be used for addressing with NAT, though 32 bit port number should be large enough. Masataka Ohta
