Re: [v6ops] Our IPv6-only home network and future experiments

[Brian Candler <[e-mail]>]

On 13/04/2024 09:57, Tore Anderson wrote:
> Having IPv6 nodes with a single global IPv6 address is not «bad 
> practice», it is very common, even in networks using SLAAC.
>
> As for the CLAT as described in RFC6877, it was simply easier to 
> implement in a bolt-on fashion by requiring a dedicated IPv6 address, 
> since that meant the implementer did not have to care about things 
> like sockets, TCP/UDP ports and such. Your proposed implementation 
> goes directly into those areas though, so it does appear to me that 
> you could do better than the original. I would therefore suggest you 
> reconsider this decision. 

I just want to reiterate that point.

When composing my original reply, I starting thinking that a libc CLAT 
implementation in an unprivileged process would have difficulty getting 
an additional IPv6 address assigned - until I realised this was 
completely unnecessary.  You can, and should, just let the kernel do its 
default source address selection.

Imagine that you had a dozen processes all with their own userland CLAT: 
you wouldn't want, or need, a dozen additional IPv6 addresses created. 
But neither is there any point in creating a single additional IPv6 
address for all the CLATs to share.