@apangona also make shure you ain't forced on some horrible #IPv4 / #IPv6 #NAT + #PAT scenarios like #4in6 or #4over6 that may provide additional issues and/or packet size increases.

Such cases do caused high CPU load on #Freifunk routers which had to constantly fragmentate and defragmentate packages due to #MTU mismatches (?between WIFI / LAN & WAN, effectively reducing their bandwith to ~ 16 MBit/s max, as they tunnel all traffic via #OpenVPN...

@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