[jsn]

> IPv4 and NAT require maintaining a lot of state at critical intermediate routers. I'm sure we've all experienced (perhaps regularly) a NAT'ing router losing state because of a reboot, state tables overflowing, or similar hiccups.

As far as I can see, that state is not very important for the mobile IP design describe in the article. A router reboot or other hiccups are handled more or less the same way as an address change (there is a temporary connectivity loss, and when it's restored, you create a new mapping on the Y server between the existing connection, identified by the same old uuid, and the new external/internal addresses/ports of the client X).

[wahern]

Exactly, it's not necessary. All it does is add complexity and unnecessary failure points.

Mobile providers use IPv6 for a reason. CGNAT is still used because, among other reasons, the internet (at least in the U.S. and Europe) is still predominately IPv4. If IPv4 disappeared tomorrow CGNAT (and the centralization of mobile network egress points) might be able to go away, too. If, additionally, QUIC completely replaced TCP, I can't think of any reason for maintaining such choke points.

In as much as IPv6 provides a faster, more reliable network, it benefits QUIC. And the more ubiquitous QUIC becomes the easier IPv6 will become to manage.

QUIC won't be a panacea any more than IPv6 was. But they're both important improvements to the network.