> Sure, I don't have to, but everything in the stack assumes I would run it in the recommended way. > This would not be a problem if it would be just bigger IP

> Sure, I don't have to, but everything in the stack assumes I would run it in the recommended way. > This would not be a problem if it would be just bigger IPv4 and there still was NAT, DHCP and everything. Irony, I remember life before DHCP/NAT44 defaults, and having to struggle so much to do it myself. Mind, this was 1997, and IPv6 was already a defined standard, which then never got any traction because NAT44 ended up being “good enough” for most people who didn’t think about what they lost in the process. > Should it be technically possible? Yes, definitely. Is there any value for me in spending a lot of time on it? There was a lot of value in me spending a lot of time and effort on setting up DHCP and NAT in my home environment in the 90s. Nobody else I knew thought it was worthwhile though, and thought I was insane. There was a lot of value in me spending a lot of time and effort on dual stacking my LAN too. I see a parallel here that’s amusing to me :-)