> we SHOULD have considered allocating more internet addresses to China than we allocated to, say, Stanford University.
That might actually have been a good justification for China being in control of its own addressing scheme (which the draft proposes) if we didn't have IPv6. But now there is no need, since the cost of implementing a nationwide NAT (sort of) might rival, if not exceed, the cost of transitioning to IPv6.
Don't confuse IP addresses (which are finite and especially in the early days could only be handed out it big chunks) with DNS names (which are infinite and as hierarchical and granular as necessary).
That might actually have been a good justification for China being in control of its own addressing scheme (which the draft proposes) if we didn't have IPv6. But now there is no need, since the cost of implementing a nationwide NAT (sort of) might rival, if not exceed, the cost of transitioning to IPv6.