I for one am glad to see that if the time should arrive for me, Linux will support this out of the box, and that the greater madness by far, is to ignore a problem simply because you'd prefer that it not exist.
Besides all that, there is simple hacker value in having this kind of translation available. Great ideas are often borne of insanity.
Accomplishing that could happen in various ways, e.g. promoting SCTP (which allows establishing new channels over the same initial connection), or introduction of an abstract naming service that would preserve layering (I'd be very surprised if something like this didn't already exist).
Are you really suggesting that NAT66 be developed and deployed in order to help you violate your contract? Should the IETF find some way to help you get out of paying your bill too, or maybe stealing somebodies WiFi?
Sorry, contracts that ignore Schelling points are invalid. Concretely, it's called a demarcation point and everything past it is none of your business.
What does a focal point have to do with this? There's no absence of information on either side, unless you just chose to ignore what you signed.
The ISP is providing you connectivity to their network, generally through a heavily subsidized connection, for you to get 'Internet' access. Discriminating between business customers and home users is something that occurs in many industries (see wholesale/retail). You get a significantly reduced price as a home user for reduced connectivity options/flexibility.
If you want or need the flexibility, you pay more and get a neutral connection, where they will (generally) happily route you whatever you need and can justify.
It's not an invalid contract, and what was suggested is fraud at it's most basic level. I don't see how it's different from using a vehicle as a business vehicle, but claiming it's a personal use vehicle to your insurance company to get a cheaper rate.
Wholesale is cheaper because the overhead per unit is reduced. Business class connections give you a static IP and hopefully service commitments. These things have differences in what is actually being provided, not just a contract which says 'for business'. People work from home on consumer connections all the time, and there's probably a vestigal clause in those service contracts about 'not for business use'. And people declare business vehicles because they're cheaper as tax writeoffs (and then do use them personally as a perk of the business).
Telling the providers that I have one device hooked to their network (even though I have more devices hooked to that one) is separation of concerns, not fraud. Should they be able to bill me more based on my yearly income? That surely is every businesses dream - the ultimate in price descrimination. The only thing the carrier should be concerned about is the quantity and size of packets I send through them. If anything is fraud, it's the carriers advertising 'unlimited internet', then hassling you for using it too much, and mangling your packets in direct contradiction of the seminal End-to-End paper.
That said, I think it's disingenuous to compare a residential network connection with a commercial telecom contract, as they provide fundamentally different things. The cross connect or peering contract you sign at Equinix is radically different in every way from the service agreement you establish with a residential vendor.
I disagree with residential connections having a separation of concerns. Cox, Comcast, et. al. ALL provide desktop technical support to get PCs, laptops, ipads, etc. on the Internets. In many cases, exactly like Ma Bell, they own everything but your PC, and provide configuration assistance and technical support for even that.
Now, I'm not arguing this is a positive thing, just that it is the reality of the situation in the vast majority of cases.
You do NOT have a contract that says 'the demarc is X, with a commit of N Mbps' or the like, you have a contract which says 'you can use this connection and our equipment, and we'll support you, for one device, for this type of usage'. Like it or not, you're not buying a neutral communication line - hell, in many cases, the cable or fiber plant isn't even required to be open to competing service like a LEC has to be.
I was comparing residential connections to small business connections, which only differ in static IPs and contractual guarantees. Most people engaged in home business activities do not have these connections.
You're engaging in 'contract fundamentalism' because you're bringing up all these vestigial clauses inserted by the ISP's legal compiler into their document-that-nobody-reads while ignoring the actual contract, which is determined by the understanding between parties. As far as any user is concerned, the only actions of theirs that matter are whether they pay their bill and whether they set off the ISP's hassle-this-user system. I'm sure many ISPs have clauses about multiple devices, running "servers", piracy, business use, wifi, swearing/offending people, etc. But the only time they even come close to mattering is when the ISP is the target of a legal attack.
We'll agree to disagree - enjoy your frustration and lack of understanding of how these things work.
Contract fundamentalism is orthogonal to the rule of law. Fundamentalism presumes that following the base rules of the system (unbounded contracts) is more important than following the behavioral rules (actual contract law).