Absolutely not. NAT was created to help with the limited IPv4 space, and only that. The separation into routable wan and non-routable lan was a nasty side effect of this work around. IPv6 doesn’t have this issue, even though for some reasons it also has the NAT mechanism. Every device should be globally routable and the access should be policed by the firewalls.
> NAT was created to help with the limited IPv4 space, and only that.
Irrelevant. It's paramount that LAN operators should have tools for configuring LAN routing policies properly.
It so happens that NAT is the tool usually used for this.
(Not necessarily, though; we don't use NAT on the corporate LANs I'm responsible for, we have two interfaces and OSPF and wireguard to tie it all together.)
In a just and sane world IPv6 should have solved the tunneling problem so we don't have to rely on the myriad of incompatible and broken solutions just to bridge two network segments. Alas, we got the useless solution to a non-problem instead.
> Every device should be globally routable
That is literally insane, like I said. People who propose this should be banned from ever doing IT again.
> ...the access should be policed by the firewalls
Of course that too, but that issue is vastly less important than the routing issue.
> Irrelevant. It's paramount that LAN operators should have tools for configuring LAN routing policies properly.
It so happens that NAT is the tool usually used for this.
No, it is absolutely relevant. There is no “routing policies” enforced by NAT whatsoever. NAT has nothing to do with routing, it’s literally the address translation mechanism. Routing doesn’t change whether you’re using NAT or assigning addresses to devices within LAN from the provider’s network or your own PI range. There’s no “routing issue” in either case, the only meaningful difference is the LAN address range.
The only issue I can think of is using the provider’s range for LAN addressing - it will be unnecessary difficult to use multiple uplinks in this case. And having to renumber your network in case of provider change also quite a disadvantage. PI addresses and BGP peering with uplinks would be the right solution in this case (and getting your own v6 subnet is currently trivial).
> That is literally insane, like I said. People who propose this should be banned from ever doing IT again.
This is an amazing argument, thank you for that, I have immediately changed my mind after reading it. Also check the address of the cellular interface of your mobile, chances are it is in fact global, despite of your disagreement.
Exactly. Making my private LAN devices globally routable is literally insane.