@leeloo Until regulators like @BNetzA get their shit together and mandate a /64 of #IPv6 to be supplied to every #internet connection with no exceptioms or charges and mandates services and devices to support it as well, we'll not he above to get rid of #IPv4.

• Worse is only #DualStackLite and having to do unreliable (due to #Geoblocking) hacks like #6in4 / #6over4 with https://tunnelbroker.net ...

Meanwhile it would be cheaper and easier for me to literally get my own private /24 of IPv4s than to convince my ISP to offer me even a single /48 of IPv6s...

@stanford @kobayashi90 well, my notation proposal is just a way to note down the #IPv6 and it could allow for a "#4over6" transitional mechalism (similar to #6over4) by specifying a fixed /96 subnet for automatic PAT+NAT so we'd not have shit like #DualStackLite with #CGNAT which is just horrible.

Bonus Points if your (mobile) ISP uses RFC1918 adress spaces, bricking #VPN's!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/6over4
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT