...
One of the problems with NAT, at least from my perspective, is that they require a split-DNS employment to get local name resolution. Are we expecting that NAP will have that same property?Split-DNS would make the non-local case more efficient, but it is not a hard requirement like it is with IPv4/nat. Given that enterprises have nodes that they don't want the world to know about they are likely to be running some form of split-DNS anyway, so I don't see this as a big deal either way.
Personal opinion: in enterprise network deployments, split DNS is as likely to go away as firewalls. If an enterprise has internal servers that it wishes to hide from the outside world, split DNS is inevitable. As Tony says, NAP will work without it (i.e. if a ULA appears in global DNS, it will be unrouteable) but I bet it will be as widespread in IPv6 as it is for IPv4. Brian