Because when people say "XXX is broken because of NAT", they actually mean "XXX is broken because of stateful connection tracking and filtering".
They just say "NAT" because stateful connection tracking and filtering is an integral part of NAT, and NAT is the most use. Of course it's possible to do a the connection-tracking without the address rewriting, but the important thing to note it is not any less complex, and causes no fewer problems.
It still prevents you from having an end-to-end internet.
You still want to have protocol-specific parsing in order to find "related" connections which should be allowed through. (e.g. with FTP). You'd still need a protocol like uPNP or NAT-PMP in order to advise the firewall to open a hole for things like BitTorrent. There's almost no advantage at that point versus actually having a NAT.
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds