I don’t see it. No users care that NAT breaks the end to end principle. That’s only something users care about that want to accept connections, which is <1%.
TCP and UDP have been running over NAT for so long that they work completely fine. People who make the mistake of assuming asymmetric ports or putting IPs in the payload fail so early that they quickly learn.
There is so little actual pressure to implement ipv6 that it’s starting to look pretty doomed.
> I don’t see it. No users care that NAT breaks the end to end principle. That’s only something users care about that want to accept connections, which is <1%.
I'm not sure <1% of users want to video chat or to play games without dedicated servers.
> There is so little actual pressure to implement ipv6 that it’s starting to look pretty doomed.
There is so much pressure to implement IPv6 on mobile that Apple checks if your app can deal with an IPv6 only network before the approve it to show up on the store. If your website supports IPv6 and you have a sizable mobile userbase, you'll see plenty of it.
TCP and UDP have been running over NAT for so long that they work completely fine. People who make the mistake of assuming asymmetric ports or putting IPs in the payload fail so early that they quickly learn.
There is so little actual pressure to implement ipv6 that it’s starting to look pretty doomed.