It would seem to me the real solution to the problem of NAT would be to switch to IPv6. The problem, of course, is that "nobody else is using IPv6"... I suspect, though, that a migration strategy could be devised.
Step 1: run IPv6 on your local network (instead of 192.168/16, 172.16/12 or 10/8) and NAT as usual. At that point, it works just as well as before - no better, but no worse.
Step 2: run a publicly-accessible tunnel on the gateway. Ideally, it would be autoconfiguring; at the very least, it should automatically tunnel and route with anyone else running the same program on their gateway.
Step 1 ensures that there is no disadvantage to using IPv6 (compared with IPv4 NAT on dynamic IP, which is the target group of this strategy); step 2 adds an advantage - initially slight, but increasing as more people adopt this strategy.
Of course, since I'm not about to implement the above, I can't really complain if nobody else does, either :-)
Update: Naturally, somebody did... I believe the currently-recommended method is 6to4.
⇦ IBM said *what* ?! | ⇨ Very remote printing |
