If you need to use NAT with IPv6 you're doing something wrong..
No offense, but that's just a lame argument and you know it. By that logic if you are using NAT on IPv4 (which I am sure you do) then you are doing something wrong. There isn't right and wrong. NAT is just a tool among many others. Just because you don't need it or you don't like it doesn't make it 'wrong'.
Or just because the so called IPv6-evangellists say there shouldn't be NAT, that does not mean that there are not legit use cases for some networks.
What I really don't understand is what is the problem? If someone does not want to use NAT (for ideological IPv6 nonsense or because there is no need) then don't use it. But some of us need to use it so please enough with this 'propaganda' about NAT.
If Juniper - which is among the leaders that actually route the whole internet
- implements it then there is a reason and a use for it.
I don't think that a company that deals only with enterprise clients would spend time implement a feature that wasn't asked for.
I honestly cannot understand why anyone would oppose to a feature that they don't need. If you don't need it just don't use it. Don't deprive the rest of us of the opportunity to have it.