From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <toke@toke.dk>
Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [IPv6:2a0c:4d80:42:2001::664])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1BBB03B2A4
 for <libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 16:52:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= <toke@toke.dk>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023;
 t=1666817551; bh=15sEMvVUeOmwYJflCzAZI8DJxd0NR9tNERHhL9JaXDU=;
 h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From;
 b=lEGXrzau8mpxpTflbAMVtE476V26Xa1uUvXcM7eXbVQEEwWMHI0G660bN4kMJgOAX
 Zg77dR8ln74qEjnA7DzXrtSjio3kawf+xPBj8R2JvXinhizlMBtCb+2fRyhqmqIhzj
 gIh2BTqbAhw7pD7PfcXP2YLdTpkd13b7NG4BVDvmkzJMjTybFJj8p3/opnp2hHSrA7
 uczIp2Yr/HNFfgbDI8VIfSd43nhgpMHQabNOEnxcSebnr8UmSOxxfGw0ip21gN0KZJ
 CHW4oMeFwHvb7vqL0gn63LE4p77UsUjmCaHHlXBfbrvlJuE8usYIvD7LHTu4nd8h68
 JqQWCrPuFgSAg==
To: Robert =?utf-8?Q?Chac=C3=B3n?= <robert.chacon@jackrabbitwireless.com>, dan
 <dandenson@gmail.com>
Cc: libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net
In-Reply-To: <CAOZyJovoUHVrFv+rnU4MNd6Wjfsu4Unz87_3Cf_Zog5k4dLubA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAA93jw5m6HsXFoNPhdxmL-Y+YvoMte2c5XmemixH=BOW8AY=kg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+erpM7OrtMOQoThO9eZjpygNjPO-XdDkrtO-s_y1iuW14Lw6g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA_JP8UCnbBj1fffrwXw3NpqH0LqGiHn=a9yDH5G6dA2Tyd+_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOZyJovoUHVrFv+rnU4MNd6Wjfsu4Unz87_3Cf_Zog5k4dLubA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2022 22:52:31 +0200
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Message-ID: <87wn8m1f5c.fsf@toke.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [LibreQoS] how are you doing on ipv4 address supply?
X-BeenThere: libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20
Precedence: list
List-Id: Many ISPs need the kinds of quality shaping cake can do
 <libreqos.lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/options/libreqos>,
 <mailto:libreqos-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/libreqos>
List-Post: <mailto:libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Help: <mailto:libreqos-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos>,
 <mailto:libreqos-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2022 20:52:33 -0000

Robert Chac=C3=B3n via LibreQoS <libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> writes:

> I'd prefer simple routing, but with IPv4 exhaustion - that would lead to a
> lot of unused RFC6598 addresses (and hence high CG-NAT ratios).

Note that it's possible to route IPv4 traffic over an IPv6-only backhaul
(at least with Linux gear):

# ip r add 10.0.0.1 via inet6 fe80::1 dev wg0
# ip r | grep 10.0.0.1
10.0.0.1 via inet6 fe80::1 dev wg0

There's an (expired, unfortunately; we should fix that) IETF draft
describing the general mechanism:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-chroboczek-int-v4-via-v6-01.html

And an extension for the Babel routing protocol to implement this (so
you can route v4 traffic through a whole network without assigning
anything other than v6 link-local addresses to the intermediate nodes):

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9229

-Toke